Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?

[Jack T. Cross]

The reality isn't that simple.  Hence not realistic or true.  think on paper versus in practice (not even in practice really) and think in terms of the time involved.
So this it Jack?

Because he had the authority and didn't use it in the minutes it occured, in the confusion that resulted from not being prepared that proves he purposefully delayed it?

Or is it because this is how it's supposed to work an ddidnt so that proves it?

If that's the whole argument that's why it virtually isn't considered legit by anyone who has the actual working knowledge of how the military works and would know if foul play was involved........thsaound s and thousands of them.
 

Do you think it was confusion that caused him to opt toward continuing with his routine schedule?

OzmO, I'm asking for an honest answer.

I want to hear a legitimate justification for his decision to continue his routine schedule, rather than to immediately and aggressively pursue an establishment of rules.

Please give me ANY possible assessment of his behavior that would explain this.

Once again, please don't forget the law:

The National Command Authority (NCA) is the ultimate lawful source of miltary orders.  The NCA consists only of the President and the Secretary of Defense or their duly deputized alternates or successors. The chain of command runs from the President to the Secretary of Defense and through the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the Commanders of the Unified and Specified Commands. - Section 3.1, Department of Defense Directive 5100.30

*Restructured in 1986 to bypass the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

[OzmO]

Do you think it was confusion that caused him to opt toward continuing with his routine schedule?

OzmO, I'm asking for an honest answer.

I want to hear a legitimate justification for his decision to continue his routine schedule, rather than to immediately and aggressively pursue an establishment of rules.

Please give me ANY possible assessment of his behavior that would explain this.

Once again, please don't forget the law:

I gave you an honest answer of what i think his thinking was.

But the issue here is your charge and how you conclude based on the facts of the day that Rumsfeld  deliberately thwarted defending the country and based on those facts, the charge falls way flat.  

Failure of duty, slow to act, unpreparedness, etc. does not immediately indicate a CT.  So sighting the NCA over and over means little.  

"ALL" you really have been doing is pointing out what everyone knew:  We weren't prepared for it, we got caught with our pants down, and incompetency helped attribute to the breakdown.  

[Jack T. Cross]

I gave you an honest answer of what i think his thinking was.

But the issue here is your charge and how you conclude based on the facts of the day that Rumsfeld  deliberately thwarted defending the country and based on those facts, the charge falls way flat.  

Failure of duty, slow to act, unpreparedness, etc. does not immediately indicate a CT.  So sighting the NCA over and over means little.  

"ALL" you really have been doing is pointing out what everyone knew:  We weren't prepared for it, we got caught with our pants down, and incompetency helped attribute to the breakdown.  

If a person in his position were involved in such a thing, and his mission was to keep the way clear until the damage was successfully completed, and furthermore to do so by creating as little risk as possible for outright exposure, what would he need to do differently than what was done by Rumsfeld on that morning?

This is a serious question.

[OzmO]

If a person in his position were involved in such a thing, and his mission was to keep the way clear until the damage was successfully completed, and furthermore to do so by creating as little risk as possible for outright exposure, what would he need to do differently than what was done by Rumsfeld on that morning?

This is a serious question.

I am pretty sure you are using a very faulty illogical argument here also.  Just because an "if" exists doesn't mean it proves something.  Kind of like I was saying that just because something didn't work it doesn't mean foul play was involved.  You have to have supporting evidence and all you really have the NCA which is like saying a QB like Tebow shouldn't be successful in the NFL therefore there's a CT with every team Denvers plays purposely let's Teebow come back an win the game in the 4th quarter.  Unless you get actual evidence you have nothing. 

We dropped the ball on 911.  Nothing more. 

[Jack T. Cross]

I am pretty sure you are using a very faulty illogical argument here also.  Just because an "if" exists doesn't mean it proves something.  Kind of like I was saying that just because something didn't work it doesn't mean foul play was involved.  You have to have supporting evidence and all you really have the NCA which is like saying a QB like Tebow shouldn't be successful in the NFL therefore there's a CT with every team Denvers plays purposely let's Teebow come back an win the game in the 4th quarter.  Unless you get actual evidence you have nothing.  

We dropped the ball on 911.  Nothing more.  

Please give me an honest answer to this question, OzmO:

If a person in his position were involved in such a thing, and his mission was to keep the way clear until the damage was completed, and he was to do it while raising as little risk as possible for exposure, what would he need to do differently than what was done by Rumsfeld on that morning?

[OzmO]

Please give me an honest answer to this question, OzmO:

If a person in his position were involved in such a thing, and his mission was to keep the way clear until the damage was completed, and he was to do it while raising as little risk as possible for exposure, what would he need to do differently than what was done by Rumsfeld on that morning?

He doesn't have to keep the way clear.

[Jack T. Cross]

He doesn't have to keep the way clear.

The object is to keep preventative measures from taking place, thus allowing the destruction to run its course.

Please give me an honest answer to this question, OzmO:

If a person in his position were involved in such a thing, and his mission was to keep the way clear until the damage was completed, and he was to do it while raising as little risk as possible for exposure, what would he need to do differently than what was done by Rumsfeld on that morning?

I say he would do exactly as Rumsfeld did, step by step.  Do you disagree?

[OzmO]

The object is to keep preventative measures from taking place, thus allowing the destruction to run its course.

I say he would do exactly as Rumsfeld did, step by step.  Do you disagree?

He doesn't have to make any preventative measures.    So what you are asking is purely Hypothetical and based on zero evidence other than a loaded preposition. 

[OzmO]

You see, your question is based on a overwhelmingly unproven premise in that Rumsfeld did take part in a deliberate effort to thwart the defense of the nation.  That makes the question pure fantasy.  

[Jack T. Cross]

He doesn't have to make any preventative measures.

A lack of preventative measures is the foundation of our entire discussion.

So what you are asking is purely Hypothetical and based on zero evidence other than a loaded preposition.  

It's based completely on Rumsfeld's actions.

[OzmO]

A lack of preventative measures is the foundation of our entire discussion.

We already know in detail "what" and "why" there was a lack of prevention.

It's based entirely on Rumsfeld's actions.

Look at your question again:

If a person in his position were involved in such a thing,

Untrue premise.  I am assuming "such a thing" is the deliberate thwarting of our defenses so an attack could succeed".  "Such a thing" has never been proven or establish in any way.

and his mission was to keep the way clear until the damage was completed, and he was to do it while raising as little risk as possible for exposure, what would he need to do differently than what was done by Rumsfeld on that morning?

this is a from of circular reasoning or "begging the question"   Here is something on that:

Begging the Question

The term “begging the question” is often misused to mean “raises the question,” (and common use will likely change, or at least add this new, definition). However, the intended meaning is to assume a conclusion in one’s question. This is similar to circular reasoning, and an argument is trying to slip in a conclusion in a premise or question – but it is not the same as circular reasoning because the question being begged can be a separate point. Whereas with circular reasoning the premise and conclusion are the same.

The conclusion you are assuming is that IN FACT there was a coordinated deliberate attempt by our government to allow America to be successfully attacked.

[OzmO]

In other words, your question is based on an unproven, unsupported "IF".

that's why i can't answer it, because i do not believe the premise the question is based on and do not see any evidence to indicate that. 

[OzmO]

I think you are misunderstanding what I meanly "rules" when i use it in this discussion or on sometimes I am misusing the word.  So what exactly do you mean in your first 2 sentences?  We weren't in state of defense suspension.  We just werent prepared.   Kind of like a NFL team in the middle of a game who had to switch their game plan to hot routs and shogun but never did that before.  Inthe middle of a game it takes more than a few minutes for our military to do that.  Usually months.

As for the rest of your post.  You are using circular reasoning in answering your own question.  There is no evidence to show he had a desired goal except when you construct your theory which is not based on any hard facts other then your theory.   also you are cherry picking to a certain degree because a third plane wasn't even positively identified until 9:30 and that was communicated in a very indirect path to the pentagon then to the emergency meeting showing the break down in communication highlighting again how unprepared we were.  Or that 100% verification of who he did or didn't speak to is impossible.  Or that a single line of communication between ground controllers, NEADS, the command unit above needs, the military command, other various command centers that can research to find out, the pentagon, the emergency committee and the president on air force one just hadn't been set up in the few minutes before the 3rd attack.  

In addition to what I said,: in a sense you can plug other theories into your argument because the base premise is unsupported  and unproven.  For example: Rumsfeld was temporarily drugged or Rumsfeld had an emotional breakdown

As far as it being the "Only Possible Way"?  He'll no.  He could have been on a trip outside the country.  He could have been on vacation. Same with the president.  He also could have been out of town.  All those possible ways would have even more justified the slow response.  And going back to my other point, he didn't have to slow the process up because it would have been known to be too slow to begin with in that
our defense posture wasn't ever set up for an attack like that.  For example:  just turn the transponder off and it will take a while for the AT controllers to figure out the plane might be hijacked and it will take a while for that to be communicated up the line......more than enough time to jusitify inaction.  Thats why I say he didn't need to do what he did to have an alibi.

[Jack T. Cross]

I think you are misunderstanding what I meanly "rules" when i use it in this discussion or on sometimes I am misusing the word.  So what exactly do you mean in your first 2 sentences?  We weren't in state of defense suspension.

Rules, as in Rules of Engagement.  Without them, we were suspended in a state of defenselessness against hijacked airliners.  Please show otherwise.

We just werent prepared.   Kind of like a NFL team in the middle of a game who had to switch their game plan to hot routs and shogun but never did that before.  Inthe middle of a game it takes more than a few minutes for our military to do that.  Usually months.

A phone call with the President would take seconds or minutes.  Not months.

Please remember this was a matter of life and death.

As for the rest of your post.  You are using circular reasoning in answering your own question.  There is no evidence to show he had a desired goal except when you construct your theory which is not based on any hard facts other then your theory.

It is based directly upon Rumsfeld's behavior and actions.  If you believe a person's behavior and actions are not evidence, I don't know what to say.

also you are cherry picking to a certain degree because a third plane wasn't even positively identified until 9:30 and that was communicated in a very indirect path to the pentagon then to the emergency meeting showing the break down in communication highlighting again how unprepared we were.

Again, were we to wait until another immediate threat was upon us before establishing the rules?  That doesn't make sense.

Or that 100% verification of who he did or didn't speak to is impossible.

All of the evidence, including Rumsfeld's own words, show exactly what happened.

If you believe he may have secretly spoken with someone during this time, then why do you suppose the rules weren't established until the last plane was being retaken by passengers?

Or that a single line of communication between ground controllers, NEADS, the command unit above needs, the military command, other various command centers that can research to find out, the pentagon, the emergency committee and the president on air force one just hadn't been set up in the few minutes before the 3rd attack.

What should this tell me in regard to Rumsfeld?

In addition to what I said,: in a sense you can plug other theories into your argument because the base premise is unsupported  and unproven.  For example: Rumsfeld was temporarily drugged or Rumsfeld had an emotional breakdown

Yes, any other theory that included a failure to act would fit into this argument.  Of course.  The reason for that is because the evidence clearly shows he failed to act.

Since there isn't any evidence to say he was drugged or having a breakdown, I wouldn't be interested in plugging either of those theories into it.

As far as it being the "Only Possible Way"?  He'll no.  He could have been on a trip outside the country.  He could have been on vacation. Same with the president.  He also could have been out of town.  All those possible ways would have even more justified the slow response.

From the U.S. Department of Defense: "...or their duly deputized alternates or successors"

If you are suggesting that Rumsfeld would have had someone else take his place that day, then that would require entering another individual into the plan.  The risk for exposure would increase dramatically at that point.

And please remember that we had instant communication in 2001, just as we have today.  

And going back to my other point, he didn't have to slow the process up because it would have been known to be too slow to begin with in that
our defense posture wasn't ever set up for an attack like that.  For example:  just turn the transponder off and it will take a while for the AT controllers to figure out the plane might be hijacked and it will take a while for that to be communicated up the line......more than enough time to jusitify inaction.  Thats why I say he didn't need to do what he did to have an alibi.

If you are suggesting that an establishment of rules at approximately 09:03 would not have placed such a plan in jeopardy, especially when the plan had theoretically just begun, then I would ask you to review the timeline again.

[OzmO]

Sorry traveling again and just too busy or tired at the end of the day.  But i am back now for a while.

Rules, as in Rules of Engagement.  Without them, we were suspended in a state of defenselessness against hijacked airliners.  Please show otherwise.

Yeah, in a sense you are right, they attacked us at the seams, likely knowing we didn't have any preparations for it.

A phone call with the President would take seconds or minutes.  Not months.

No, it takes months to properly work them out.  Working them out on the fly is dangerous, but not so dangerous you don't do so, as they were doing around 10am

Please remember this was a matter of life and death.

and a mistaken shoot down of a passenger jet would have been horrific.

It is based directly upon Rumsfeld's behavior and actions.  If you believe a person's behavior and actions are not evidence, I don't know what to say.

This is why circular reasoning isn't used to prove anything in court or in the realm of "logic"  You've made a conclusion based on very little evidence if not zero and your conclusion about Rumsfeld actions is based on a unsupported theory first.  In other words you are starting with your theory and working backwards to prove it rather than taking "all" the evidence into account and formulating a theory from that point forward.  That's why i say, aliens could have been involved (although that's a bit extreme except for example purposes) if i was using your approach.  

Again, were we to wait until another immediate threat was upon us before establishing the rules?  That doesn't make sense.

Because, from 9:03 to 9:30 our entire military did not have a positively identified threat.  What we had was a terrorist attack in what essentially was a single location (the 2 towers).

All of the evidence, including Rumsfeld's own words, show exactly what happened.

If you believe he may have secretly spoken with someone during this time, then why do you suppose the rules weren't established until the last plane was being retaken by passengers?

Couple of reasons, again, no identified threat, confusion resulting from the lack of preparation to response to an attack like this, and no knowing if there was more attack coming.  

What should this tell me in regard to Rumsfeld?

Not much other than the "defense posture" of our military negated a timely response (7 minutes from threat identification to impact) to an attack that wasn't ever considered.  

Yes, any other theory that included a failure to act would fit into this argument.  Of course.  The reason for that is because the evidence clearly shows he failed to act.

Since there isn't any evidence to say he was drugged or having a breakdown, I wouldn't be interested in plugging either of those theories into it.

No it doesn't and that's not only my opinion its also the opinion of many of the people who would stand to directly gain by accusing of such.

From the U.S. Department of Defense: "...or their duly deputized alternates or successors"

If you are suggesting that Rumsfeld would have had someone else take his place that day, then that would require entering another individual into the plan.  The risk for exposure would increase dramatically at that point.

And please remember that we had instant communication in 2001, just as we have today.  

Yes, between 2 individual parties but not accross dozens of units (NEADS, NORAD, ATC, TRACON etc.)

If you are suggesting that an establishment of rules at approximately 09:03 would not have placed such a plan in jeopardy, especially when the plan had theoretically just begun, then I would ask you to review the timeline again.

I am suggesting it and i would again urge you to be the one to review the timeline again  Simply because between 9:03-9:30 there was no identified threats and  once the intent to discuss ROE started would have likely took minutes to decide they needed to, minutes to establish the connection, and more minutes (20-30 minutes  if not hours) to clearly discuss and define ROE's that would prevent from a tragic mistake.

 

[OzmO]

BTW on a side note about the choices of "IF" i was perpetrating what you charge:

risk getting killed by an airliner crashing into a building complex i was in no matter how big the building was versus being out of the country and justifying communication issues and lack of information?

I'd go with being out of the country and i think anyone else would.   

[Jack T. Cross]

OzmO, please detail something here:

No, it takes months to properly work them out.  Working them out on the fly is dangerous, but not so dangerous you don't do so, as they were doing around 10am

If it would take months to properly work out the rules, how were they able to do it within minutes at approximately 10:00?

Because, from 9:03 to 9:30 our entire military did not have a positively identified threat.

...and if such a threat presented itself, and was immediate in nature?

[OzmO]

OzmO, please detail something here:

If it would take months to properly work out the rules, how were they able to do it within minutes at approximately 10:00?

They did it on the fly, but in a perfect world.....one where they aren't trying to figure out ROE during the chaos, they put through testing and debate.  So its not like they wanted to do it that way.

Jack, you need to apply a little common sense here.  We are talking about shooting down a passenger jet.  You don't make those decisions about the ROE's  haphazardly. 
 

...and if such a threat presented itself, and was immediate in nature?

??  I don't understand what you are getting at?

They wouldn't know because there wasn't any info at the time.

[Jack T. Cross]

They did it on the fly, but in a perfect world.....one where they aren't trying to figure out ROE during the chaos

Who was doing this? 

??  I don't understand what you are getting at?

If such a threat presented itself to a member further down the chain, and required immediate action...?

[OzmO]

Who was doing this? 

If such a threat presented itself to a member further down the chain, and required immediate action...?

Who was doing what?

Not a member a unit.  Immediate action was already set up to be enacted from attacks coming from outside the US not from the inside the way it was happening.  That's why as I said, much was changed afterwards. 

[Jack T. Cross]

Who was doing what?

trying to establish ROE immediately after it became apparent we were under attack

Not a member a unit.  Immediate action was already set up to be enacted from attacks coming from outside the US not from the inside the way it was happening.  That's why as I said, much was changed afterwards.  

Who was the only person in the world holding enough power to correct such a situation?

[OzmO]

trying to establish ROE immediately after it became apparent we were under attack

Who was the only person in the world holding enough power to correct such a situation?

It was only apparent they were attacked NOT that they were still under attack.

[Jack T. Cross]

It was only apparent they were attacked NOT that they were still under attack.

You're saying his behavior indicates that he made an assumption that the danger of further attack was over.

Yet there were still airplanes in the sky--each with the potential to become a missile--with our standing defense structure unable to protect us.  So if indeed his true objective was to defend against further destruction, how can such a position be justified?

[OzmO]

You're saying his behavior indicates that he made an assumption that the danger of further attack was over.

Yet there were still airplanes in the sky--each with the potential to become a missile--with our standing defense structure unable to protect us.  So if indeed his true objective was to defend against further destruction, how can such a position be justified?

He didn't order the military to stand down, so he didn't make the assumption the attacks were over.   However at the time, in the 27 minutes after impact, while the military was still active, responding and scrambling, there were no identified threats, no identified hijacked planes, and as far as Rumsfeld knew it was an attack in a singular location.  so yes, such a position is justified, in that at 9:04 at that instance, considering  it wasn't  a pre planned set up proceedure, that he wasn't trying to establish ROE 's

[Jack T. Cross]

He didn't order the military to stand down, so he didn't make the assumption the attacks were over.   However at the time, in the 27 minutes after impact, while the military was still active, responding and scrambling, there were no identified threats, no identified hijacked planes, and as far as Rumsfeld knew it was an attack in a singular location.  so yes, such a position is justified, in that at 9:04 at that instance, considering  it wasn't  a pre planned set up proceedure, that he wasn't trying to establish ROE 's

From Rumsfeld's perspective, what were subordinates in the chain of command to do if a deadly threat involving a commercial airliner was encountered, and it required immediate action to prevent further increased risk for catastrophe?