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

[OzmO]

From Rumsfeld's persective, 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 of catastrophe?

Thats part of why the attacks succeeded.  As I have saying over and over, we weren't prepared for an attack like this.  Now we are. 

[Jack T. Cross]

Thats part of why the attacks succeeded.  As I have saying over and over, we weren't prepared for an attack like this.  Now we are. 

How can lack of preparation stop a phone call from taking place?

[OzmO]

How can lack of preparation stop a phone call from taking place?

To who from who?  When and what?

[Jack T. Cross]

To who from who?  When and what?

From the perspective of an honest Secretary of Defense, the goal is to place us into the least threatened position, as quickly as possible.

Since Bush and Rumsfeld were the only two persons in existence who could rightfully claim to be the National Command Authority, that would be a blatantly obvious starting point.

[OzmO]

From the perspective of an honest Secretary of Defense, the goal is to place us into the least threatened position, as quickly as possible.

Since Bush and Rumsfeld were the only two persons in existence who could rightfully claim to be the National Command Authority, that would be a blatantly obvious starting point.

You seem to be suggesting one phone call could have prevented it.  From who to who and when and what ( what would the call or calls say)?

[Jack T. Cross]

You seem to be suggesting one phone call could have prevented it.  From who to who and when and what ( what would the call or calls say)?

The idea was to correct this imbalance as quickly as possible:

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 of catastrophe?

I'm sure you know, it was a matter of communicating as the NCA to the military.

[OzmO]

The idea was to correct this imbalance as quickly as possible:

I'm sure you know, it was a matter of communicating as the NCA to the military.

I am asking you to detail it out.

Who does he call, what does he say and when does he do it, in detail.

[Jack T. Cross]

I am asking you to detail it out.

Who does he call, what does he say and when does he do it, in detail.

He would immediately enter the Executive Support Center, where he would be placed in communication with the President and the NMCC General.

He would confirm the obvious with them, ideally speaking to both at the same time, that an unyeilding plane will not be allowed to further threaten life.

At that point, he has placed the situation where it belongs: in the hands of skilled military pilots.

[OzmO]

He would immediately enter the Executive Support Center, where he would be placed in communication with the President and the NMCC General.

He would confirm the obvious with them, ideally at the same time, that an unyeilding plane will not be allowed to further threaten life.

At that point, he has placed the situation where it belongs: in the hands of skilled military pilots.

What was the obvious?

[Jack T. Cross]

What was the obvious?

That there was an extremely high risk for further attack by something we were completely defenseless against, and the power to defend was thereby immediately granted.

[OzmO]

That there was an extremely high risk for further attack by something we were completely defenseless against, and the power to defend was thereby immediately granted.

Not at all.  The military did not stand down and there were no identified threats. As far as they (NORAD included) knew, with the information in the minutes after 9:03 there were no threats.  

Point being, it wasn't at all "Obvious".  Obvious can only be concluded with hindsight.

Consequentially, nothing that Rumsfeld would have done could have stopped it.  

[Jack T. Cross]

Not at all.  The military did not stand down and there were no identified threats. As far as they (NORAD included) knew, with the information in the minutes after 9:03 there were no threats.

Again, we were to wait until another immediate threat was upon us before establishing rules?  That would only increase the risk of lost lives.

As far as they knew, with the information in the minutes after 9:03 there were no threats.

Beyond the fact that it turned out to be wrong, we are brought back to the question of why we'd be expected to wait for another immediate threat before attempting to establish the rules.

Please explain the advantage to such a strategy. 

Point being, it wasn't at all "Obvious".  Obvious can only be concluded with hindsight.

There were still airplanes in the sky, each with the potential to become a missile, each with the potential to cause further catastrophic destruction. 

If you don't believe that was obvious, I don't know what to say.

[OzmO]

Again, we were to wait until another immediate threat was upon us before establishing rules?  That would only increase the risk of lost lives.

Beyond the fact that it turned out to be wrong, we are brought back to the question of why we'd be expected to wait for another immediate threat before attempting to establish the rules.

We're are talking about a matter of minutes, not hours.

Please explain the advantage to such a strategy. 

There were still airplanes in the sky, each with the potential to become a missile, each with the potential to cause further catastrophic destruction. 

If you don't believe that was obvious, I don't know what to say.

Because there were no identified threats.  I am not arguing what maybe "should" have been done.  The word "Should" only usually is valid in hindsight especially in this situation and here's why:

Let's say, Rumsfeld at 9:04 decided to do what you suggested.  It still would have not stopped it.  They didn't have a identified threat.  So he says to NORAD or MC shoot down the next plane that's hijacked.  Which plane would that be?  The military didn't have any plane identified nor did civilian ATC at 9:03 nor did they positively in the 10-20 minutes afterwards.  The planes they did have identified were all on secondary radar using transponders and were not being hijacked. 

So i ask, you which plane do they shoot down out of the hundreds flying around in the air that day?

On top of that, how do they know for 100% sure that the transponder isn't malfunctioning with out a visual attempt at communication?

Are you suggesting we should have shoot any plane down immediately that didn't respond to our communication attempts without visual confirmation?

The only way Rumsfeld can implicated of "being in on it" would be IF they had a positively identified hijacked plane heading towards a populated area , we had an armed jet in the air in the area and he refused to give the order.  NONE OF THAT HAPPENED

[Jack T. Cross]

I am not arguing what maybe "should" have been done.  The word "Should" only usually is valid in hindsight

For an honest person in Rumsfeld's position to allow the state of defenselessness to continue, would suggest that he was attempting an alternative strategy that he felt would better protect our citizens.

What could such a strategy be?

Let's say, Rumsfeld at 9:04 decided to do what you suggested.  It still would have not stopped it.  They didn't have a identified threat.  So he says to NORAD or MC shoot down the next plane that's hijacked.  Which plane would that be?  The military didn't have any plane identified nor did civilian ATC at 9:03 nor did they positively in the 10-20 minutes afterwards.  The planes they did have identified were all on secondary radar using transponders and were not being hijacked. 

So i ask, you which plane do they shoot down out of the hundreds flying around in the air that day?

On top of that, how do they know for 100% sure that the transponder isn't malfunctioning with out a visual attempt at communication?

Are you suggesting we should have shoot any plane down immediately that didn't respond to our communication attempts without visual confirmation?

Most importantly, he would not do the pilots' thinking for them.

The idea is to allow for removal of any threat that would further increase the risk for catastrophe, without the need to waste time if the situation required immediate action.

An example of this might be a plane that is not properly triangulated, is unyeilding despite warning shots, and is refusing to break course from a population center.

[OzmO]

For an honest person in Rumsfeld's position to allow the state of defenselessness to continue, would suggest that he was attempting an alternative strategy that he felt would better protect our citizens.

What could such a strategy be?

Not mistakenly shooting down a civilian passenger jet, for one thing, because of an hasty irresponsible preemptive order.  Not wasting available resources (armed fighter jets) searching for a plane that's not identified or located yet.  Also, i hardly think any of those people in those position are very honest lol.  

Most importantly, he would not do the pilots' thinking for them.

The idea is to allow for removal of any threat that would further increase the risk for catastrophe, without the need to waste time if the situation required immediate action.

An example of this might be a plane that is not properly triangulated, is unyeilding despite warning shots, and is refusing to break course from a population center.

No of that happened.  We didn't have an identified threat and didn't have visual contact by and armed interceptor.

So i don't see where you have anything you can legitimately charge Rumsfeld with regarding a purposeful attempt at thwarting our defenses so a passenger plane can hit the building complex he was presently at.  

I will ask again:

Which plane do they shoot down out of the hundreds flying around in the air that day?

On top of that, how do they know for 100% sure that the transponder isn't malfunctioning with out a visual attempt at communication?

Are you suggesting we should have shoot any plane down immediately that didn't respond to our communication attempts without visual confirmation?

Here's some more questions:

At 9:04 where is this "maybe just in case" plane or planes?  Which one is it?  Where does the visual confirmation come from?  Where are the nearest jets?   How many are there available and where do you send them to at 9:04?  At 9:14?  At 9:24?

oh here's one more:

What if the passengers overtook the hijackers  but the transponder and radio was disabled by the hijackers?  Should have shoot them down because we couldn't make contact with them on the radio?

[OzmO]

Bottom line:

I don't know how much more obvious it can be that Rumsfeld wasn't involved in an effort to thwart our defenses when:

1.  No threats were identified from 9:03 to just minutes before impact at 9:37
2.  Establishing ROE's and ordering the shoot down of hijacked planes from 9:03 to just before 9:37 wouldn't have stopped what happened.


PS:  please do me a favor.  I notice when respond with lengthy posts you tend to pick out one thing and ignore many of the points i bring up in those posts.  Please don't cherry pick these. 

[Jack T. Cross]

Not mistakenly shooting down a civilian passenger jet, for one thing, because of an hasty irresponsible preemptive order.  Also, i hardly think any of those people in those position are very honest lol.

If the order was meant to preserve the greatest amount of life, how would it be irresponsible?  

No of that happened.  We didn't have an identified threat and didn't have visual contact by and armed interceptor.

No one can tell the future, or predict the exact timing of events.  So from Rumsfeld's perspective at the time, what was a subordinate to do if an immediate and deadly threat presented itself in the form of a hijacked airliner?
  

[OzmO]

If the order was meant to preserve the greatest amount of life, and our military pilots are skilled, capable professionals, how would it be irresponsible?  

Because an order would have been made to shoot down a passenger jet that was hijacked when there were no identified planes that were hijacked, no visual confirmation, no contact with hijacked planes, and hundreds and hundreds of planes flying around the are that morning.  That's a recipe for disaster which could include a mid air collision as well as a mistaken shoot down.  

AND

Even if he did, it still wouldn't have mattered because they didn't have a target IN TIME

No one can tell the future, or predict the exact timing of events.  So from Rumsfeld's perspective at the time, what was a subordinate to do if an immediate and deadly threat presented itself in the form of a hijacked airliner?
  

What difference would that make?   So you are basing your charge on a hypothetical?

com on man.  


Still...............  I should ask these questions to you, again.........because they are related to the question you just asked that i did answer:

Which plane do they shoot down out of the hundreds flying around in the air that day?

On top of that, how do they know for 100% sure that the transponder isn't malfunctioning with out a visual attempt at communication?

Are you suggesting we should have shoot any plane down immediately that didn't respond to our communication attempts without visual confirmation?


At 9:04 where is this "maybe just in case" plane or planes?  Which one is it?  Where does the visual confirmation come from?  Where are the nearest jets?   How many are there available and where do you send them to at 9:04?  At 9:14?  At 9:24?

What if the passengers overtook the hijackers  but the transponder and radio was disabled by the hijackers?  Should have shoot them down because we couldn't make contact with them on the radio?

[Jack T. Cross]

PS:  please do me a favor.  I notice when respond with lengthy posts you tend to pick out one thing and ignore many of the points i bring up in those posts.  Please don't cherry pick these.  

That happens when we are misfiring.

In this case, it's because we are viewing the subject of the order differently.  You are envisioning it as a specific target to pursue, whereas I am viewing it as an umbrella order that would permit engagement of an unyeilding plane just as surely as a stolen semi filled with explosives.

We need to reconcile this right away.  Please tell me the flaw in my reasoning.

Bottom line:

I don't know how much more obvious it can be that Rumsfeld wasn't involved in an effort to thwart our defenses when:

1.  No threats were identified from 9:03 to just minutes before impact at 9:37

Again, this would suggest that we required a specific threat to proceed with establishing safeguards.

2.  Establishing ROE's and ordering the shoot down of hijacked planes from 9:03 to just before 9:37 wouldn't have stopped what happened

From the perspective of a Secretary of Defense who would want to see the destruction take place, do you believe it would give reason for concern that any subsequent events could be placed in jeopardy?  Because from such a perspective, the events are easily understood.

Now please explain it from the perspective of a Secretary of Defense whose intent was to preserve the greatest amount of life.

[OzmO]

That happens when we are misfiring.

In this case, it's because we are viewing the subject of the order differently.  You are envisioning it as a specific target to pursue, whereas I am viewing it as an umbrella order that would permit engagement of an unyeilding plane just as surely as a stolen semi filled with explosives.

We need to reconcile this right away.  Please tell me the flaw in my reasoning.

No prob.   .  

My point here is that at that time to construct an umbrella order would have been irresponsible for the reasons i listed, (including those many questions that you still haven't answered) AND would have taken too long to set up.  Hence it doesn't make any difference.  Rumsfeld actions are moot either way in relation to your charge..  add that to my last few posts and that's one of the major flaws in your reasoning.  

Again, this would suggest that we required a specific threat to proceed with establishing safeguards.

Yes and no.  Yes because of the possibility of shooting down the wrong plane and no because of the time to respond was too short any way.  We almost got there in time, though.

From the perspective of someone who would want to see the destruction take place, do you believe it would give reason for concern that any subsequent events could be placed in jeopardy?  Because from such a perspective, the events are easily understood.

I don't understand what you are saying here.

Now please explain it from the perspective of a Secretary of Defense whose intent was to preserve the greatest amount of life.

From his POV?  i don't know.  I am not him.  I do know, what ever he did or didn't do wouldn't have changed what happened.  So you can't pin anything on him.  However, mistakenly shooting down the wrong plane would have resulted in more deaths.  

[Jack T. Cross]

No prob.

My point here is that at that time to construct an umbrella order would have been irresponsible for the reasons i listed, (including those many questions that you still haven't answered) AND would have taken too long to set up.  Hence it doesn't make any difference.  Rumsfeld actions are moot either way in relation to your charge..  add that to my last few posts and that's one of the major flaws in your reasoning.

We're talking about a simple set of rules to be used for any encounter with an uncooperative and improperly triangulated plane, that would have had all possible slant toward not shooting.

A genuinely defensive posture would have REQUIRED such provisions to be in place.  

Please show otherwise, as this is where we are divided.

[OzmO]

We're talking about a simple set of rules to be used for any encounter with an uncooperative and improperly triangulated plane, that would have had all possible slant toward not shooting.

A genuinely defensive posture would have REQUIRED such provisions to be in place.  

Please show otherwise, as this is where we are divided.

It wouldn't have made a difference, the plane would have hit either way.  All you have here at the most is a charge of incompetence born from hindsight.  Not even in the same ball park as showing he deliberately thwarted our defense to allow the plane to hit.

Consider this area as where your charge completely fails

In addition, to answer your question, what you suggest as a course of action here already would have occurred anyway with or with out a shoot down order based on basic military intercept protocol in a hijack situation.  

[OzmO]

Just off the top of my head, I believe the protocol would be to intercept the hijacked plane that they cant make contact with on the radio and attempt to initiate visual communication to conform they are hijacked.  At that time a decision would have to be made and they  would have to try and contact the president to get a shoot down order. the communication would likely go from the plane, to NEADS, to General Arnold in Florida to NORAD to Air Force one.

But none of that happened did it?...... because they didn't get there in time because it took too long ( for civilian controllers in Indy) to identify a hijacked plane on primary radar especially when there transponder went off in an area where the primary was blind......due to what?  A scale down of primary radars because of the end of the cold war and the idea that they didn't need inland primary radar systems because of secondary radar and transponders.

[Jack T. Cross]

It wouldn't have made a difference, the plane would have hit either way.

Whether that's true or not, Rumsfeld couldn't have presumed to know such a thing at the time.

Just off the top of my head, I believe the protocol would be to intercept the hijacked plane that they cant make contact with on the radio and attempt to initiate visual communication to conform they are hijacked.  At that time a decision would have to be made and they  would have to try and contact the president to get a shoot down order. the communication would likely go from the plane, to NEADS, to General Arnold in Florida to NORAD to Air Force one.

This is exactly why we needed the particular set of rules in question.  And the only way to minimize risk was to establish them immediately.

But none of that happened did it?...... because they didn't get there in time because it took too long ( for civilian controllers in Indy) to identify a hijacked plane on primary radar especially when there transponder went off in an area where the primary was blind......due to what?  A scale down of primary radars because of the end of the cold war and the idea that they didn't need inland primary radar systems because of secondary radar and transponders

What should this tell me about Rumsfeld?

From the perspective of a Defense Secretary whose desire is to minimize the potential for further destruction, what if a reality were to quickly unfold that included notice of a military jet encounter with a hijacked airliner at a critical point in its transgression?  By the time the information had been transferred to him, the disaster could have become unavoidable.

How could such a Defense Secretary justify this discrepancy?

[OzmO]

Whether that's true or not, Rumsfeld couldn't have presumed to know such a thing at the time.

Yeah, but because of that there is nothing to implicate him.  You can't charge his inaction as a reason why the plane hit.  The plane hit because we failed at the airport to spot the hijackers, failed to identify the hijacked plane because of and a lack of primary radars, failed to intercept the plane because it took too long to identify it and communicate to the military, failed because we could get a armed jet there in time as a result and even if we did, chances are very great we couldn't have got the order to the jet in time through that chain from the president or Rumsfeld to shot it down in time.  


This is fundamental.  

This is exactly why we needed the particular set of rules in question.  And the only way to minimize risk was to establish them immediately.

That set of rules already existed.  We had protocols for hijacked planes.  What didn't have protocols for was hijacked planes used as weapons requiring a shoot down order.  

So are you saying that because he didn't set up those rules immediately he's guilty of trying to thwart our defenses to allow the plane to hit when the plane would have hit any way?

That doesn't make a lick of sense.  Sorry.  Its more like witch hunt logic.

What should this tell me about Rumsfeld?

From the perspective of a Defense Secretary whose desire is to minimize the potential for further destruction, what if a reality were to quickly unfold that included notice of a military jet encounter with a hijacked airliner at a critical point in its transgression?  

How could such a Defense Secretary justify this discrepancy?

Another what if question (hypothetical).  doesn't mean anything other than to charge him with incompetence that wouldn't have mattered.

what if a reality were to quickly unfold that included notice of a military jet encounter with a hijacked airliner at a critical point in its transgression? By the time the information had been transferred to him, the disaster could have become unavoidable.

All you have done here is outline the reason why we needed to change the system to where it is now.  

The "discrepancy" is only an understandable failure by our government to prepare and defend an unprecedented attack of this sort.

Really Jack, is there anything more you can add here?  Because i don't see one thing at all that could even come remotely close to implicating Rumsfeld in a plot to deliberately thwart our defenses to allow that plane to get hit.  Nothing.  And during the course of this i have researched this section far more than i did 4 years ago when i was heavily involved in 9/11 debates.  Its like you are grasping for straws that aren't even there.  Most of what you are talking about now is "implications based on hypothetical scenarios".  It seems like the best you have is Rumsfeld's lack of action that wouldn't have changed the outcome in any way. Which is nothing.