Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums

Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Conspiracy Theories Board => Topic started by: OzmO on October 11, 2011, 12:52:31 PM



Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on October 11, 2011, 12:52:31 PM
At this point, two hijacked planes had been deliberately flown into buildings, causing horrific disaster.  Why would they think another hijacked plane was any different?

Let's stay here for a while.  We can get to the WTC's and the Seismic readings later.

This might be hard to explain good enough with out writing a book lol.  So i will give it a try.  

Here's how the radar and transponder systems worked in the USA at the time.  There are basic 2 types of Radar.  Primary:  basic radar that sweeps a 250 mile radius.  You know, the radar screen that shows a "blip" as the radar passes.   Secondary radar: that works with transponders.  A transponder is essentially sending a message from the plane to the radar saying this is who i am, were i am at, and this where i am going (flight plan) etc.   And ATC radar which goes out about 60 miles from each airport.

At any one time in the USA there are 5000 planes in the air.  In the NYC and DC you can imagine there was likely 300-400 planes flying around that morning.  

During the cold war we had upwards of 32 alert bases around the country.  After the cold war there was a serious movement to stop spending the money and that figure shrunk down to about 11.  On the east coast there were 3 from the tip of Maine to the tip of Florida.  National guard bases don't factor because they train without live ammo.   Lots the radars were scaled back, by guess who?  Colin Powell who argued that we didn't need to spend the money because the cold war threat was over.

As i said before, all our procedures and protocol were for an attack coming from outside.  If a plane comes with in 250 miles of the USA and doesnt have a transponder code and is not identified with in 3 min then there is a "Active Air Defense Scramble" where f-15's on a hot pad are sent out to get a visual identification.  When this happens civilian (FAA) authorities are notified and instructed to "clear the way" for the interceptors to make sure no mistaken ID's happen.  It is all a well rehearsed and thought out planned procedure.  But not from an attack from inside our borders and not from an attack with a few hijacked planes mixed in with lots of other planes.  

Now let's get back to the morning of 9/11.  First off there was mass confusion as to what was happening all that morning.  Not everyone knew exactly what was going on.  All kinds of reports are coming in.  At that time there was ZERO procedure from an attack with in.  And there was ZERO procedure for shooting down a civilian passenger plane.  (now there is at the 2-star level).  No one had the authority to authorize the shooting down of a passenger jet except maybe the Potus and who the hell would want to make that decision considering there could easily be a mistake.  General Arnold who was the Air force General in charge of air defense at Tindal AFB didn't have the authority and the colonel in charge at NEADS (North eastern air defense sector) certainly didn't.  

ADD all that to the chaos of not really knowing exactly what is going on AND where the next attack is coming from or to.  So now the ATC loses contact with flight 77.  They turn their transponder off.  No one can find the plane let alone they don't know were it is going to attack next.  So they finally get a couple of jets up to find it but its too late.  Even if they tried using primary radar they would have to sift through hundreds of possible targets get a visual ID and be absolutely sure they are shooting down the right jet.  Not an easy thing to do in the time allotted and the chaos of the event.  

Now all that has changed.  No one will even be able to get away with it now.   The money has been spent.  The defense measures are in place.

See Jack its easy with out knowing how Air Defense worked back then to say they had plenty of time.  But in practice, considering how all it works it was too much for something that wasn't ever planned for.  


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on October 11, 2011, 08:53:39 PM
Wow, OzmO!!  I am really impressed, bro. Thank you for this. 

Just for the record, yes, both the President and the Secretary of Defense could have issued an unquestionable order to shoot down a civilian plane that day.  Ultimately, of course, the order would be received by the military from the Secretary of Defense. 

And I agree, we should stick to this part for now, because we're getting ahead of ourselves otherwise.

Let me start by challenging something here:

First off there was mass confusion as to what was happening all that morning.

As the second plane was hitting, there was absolutely no question about what was happening.  This fact must be recognized.  We were indeed horrified, but we were not confused about the fact that hijacked planes were being used in a deliberate, coordinated attack on our citizens.

The urgency to neutralize this threat cannot be overstated.  This was to be our primary goal, period.

The identity of the remaining confirmed hijacked plane was obvious, as it was the only plane that had turned off its transponder (93 was not jacked until 9:28).  Just to be clear, everything about its identity was in fact known except its exact location.  So we have a scope of presumable location around which to orbit, we have an identifying airplane type, we have identifying carrier marks and color schemes, and we have individual markings and identifiers.   

Again, we are brought back to question of why Rumsfeld did not order a seek and destroy for what was known to be an active enemy missile.  The order would have been placed as quickly as he could have spoken the words.

I think you put it best when you said:

So they finally get a a couple of jets up to find it but its too late.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on October 11, 2011, 10:34:31 PM
Wow, OzmO!!  I am really impressed, bro. Thank you for this.  
And I agree, we should stick to this part for now, because we're getting ahead of ourselves otherwise.

No prob.   :)  
 
Quote
Let me start by challenging something here:

Just for the record, yes, both the President and the Secretary of Defense could have issued an unquestionable order to shoot down a civilian plane that day.  Ultimately, of course, the order would be received by the military from the Secretary of Defense.

As the second plane was hitting, there was absolutely no question about what was happening.  This fact must be recognized.  We were indeed horrified, but we were not confused about the fact that hijacked planes were being used in a deliberate, coordinated attack on our citizens.

The urgency to neutralize this threat cannot be overstated.  This was to be our primary goal, period.

The military operates on contingency plans and protocols.  Thousands and thousands of them.  They think up reactions and counter measures for all sort of scenarios.   They might have even had one for something like this, but they certainly didn't practice it.  And there was no protocol absolutely none for who decides to order the shooting down of a American passenger plane full of Americans.  BUSH and Rumsfield weren't just handling this one issue at the time either.   I am not saying they didn't eventually order it, i bet they did.  But for it to get decided and identified in the time allotted, knowing what i know about the military, its amazing they did it as fast they did in launching the plane when they did.

I don't know about your personal back ground but have you ever tried to get a large corporation to make a quick decision?  There are hundreds of people involved in things like this.  

35 minutes after 175 crashed into the second tower flight 77 crashed into the pentagon and the intercept flight was launched from langley 5-10 minutes before that.  

Quote
The identity of the remaining confirmed hijacked plane was obvious, as it was the only plane that had turned off its transponder (93 was not jacked until 9:28).  Just to be clear, everything about its identity was in fact known except its exact location.  So we have a scope of presumable location around which to orbit, we have an identifying airplane type, we have identifying carrier marks and color schemes, and we have individual markings and identifiers.  

Again, we are brought back to question of why Rumsfeld did not order a seek and destroy for what was known to be an active enemy missile.  The order would have been placed as quickly as he could have spoken the words.

I think you put it best when you said:

There's a reason why they have a secondary Radar system and why transponders are so important and why the world uses them now.  Because basic radar can be spotty at times.  when you are trying to pin point a plane in a small area moving at 300+ MPH or what ever  its not that simple.   But when you have both there's very little error.  At that time they had only Primary.  

So even if you take from the first WTC hitting there are so many things working against them getting a armed interceptor over there in time:

first WTC hit  8:46
Second WTC hit 9:02
Pentagon hit 9:37

-  Basic fog or war confusion which leads to hesitation.  Especially the more people involved.

-  A lack of armed and ready jets.  They probably will never release this info to the public, but i would not be surprised if they had scrambled every hot jet they had which if i remember it right was 14 along the eastern seaboard probably patrolling all over the place around many major cities.  And probably just didn't have anything they could arm up super fast like a hot jet is.  You got to realize that intelligence and and satellites would give us weeks worth of warning from an impending Russian attack and since we were in stand down mode it makes sense.

-  They was no clear protocol or procedure to scramble a jet to shoot down a passenger plane.  That alone is a miracle we got a jet vectoring over there in the time we did.

- Not knowing exactly what the next target was.

-  It doesn't matter who you are or what is so apparent and undeniable at the time.  Ordering the downing of a civilian passenger jet is NOT a snap decision in the chaos of the moments (even 60 minutes) they had to decide it.


And think about this:  If they were intentionally delaying the order who would know?

Every ATC in the country who has any experience with will military air space and operations.

Thousands of people at the FAA

Thousands of retired military personal

Every single military pilot.

Its impossible to think thousands have some sort of chip in a grand CT here.  


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on October 11, 2011, 10:41:29 PM
PS:  what's cool now.  If something like a hijacking occurs in the USA again, with in minutes you'll have an armed jet there.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on October 11, 2011, 11:22:22 PM
Also, the reason I say lots of people in on the decision, there is no way Bush and Runsfield were sitting there alone making it.  They were probably 20 or 30 poeple in the room connected to many many arms of government and military, and you gotta at least accept there is a good chance that there was a contingent of people saying don't make snap decisions to shot down fully loaded passenger jets.  And also they are dealing with the realization of 2 major events of death and destruction and we still got it done pretty dam fast considering all the points I brought up.  Not mention knee deep in emotional hysteria in some ways.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on October 11, 2011, 11:24:51 PM
And weren't they separated?  Bush and Rumsfeld?


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on October 12, 2011, 08:08:24 PM
Just to be clear about a few things:

The question isn't so much whether a seek and destroy order would have proven to be fulfilled, as we can never know. The question is why such an order wasn't issued at all during the attack.  

Donald Rumsfeld was our Secretary of Defense, meaning he would have been the person to issue an order to the military, so he is the person to focus on.  

During this critical time, he was not surrounded by staff at a table, reacting to events.  In fact, after being informed of the first hit by a special assistant, he carried on with his normal scheduled agenda for that day.  After being told of the second hit, by an assistant S.O.D. who had just watched it on television and had begun preparations for the Executive Support Center (an emergency response meeting to take place in a room down the hall from Rumsfeld's office), Rumsfeld told this person to wait for him in the ESC, as he had a previously scheduled daily briefing.  He then remained in his own office for approximately 30 minutes until the Pentagon itself was attacked.

It should be pointed out, that after the attack took place on the Pentagon, Rumsfeld left his office without speaking to his command staff, and inexplicably went to the crash site.  The National Military Command Center attempted to reach him during this time, as they had yet to be contacted by Rumsfeld at all, only to find his whereabouts were unknown.  Brigadier General Montague Winfield, who was in charge of the NMCC that morning, stated to the Commission: "For 30 minutes we couldn't find [Secretary Rumsfeld]."
 
Also, surprisingly or not, Rumsfeld has stated that he was "unaware" of what was happening.  He has also used the term "out of the loop" to describe his state during that time.  President Bush, as many will remember, was reading to children at a school, where he chose to stay.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on October 12, 2011, 09:06:23 PM
You remember earlier when i was talking about how there was no procedure in place?

When a procedure is put in place people are given responsibilities of making certain decisions.   

There wasn't a procedure for this.  That's one of the reasons for the delays.  Did he have the authority to order the shooting of an American civilian passenger jet?  Unless he was briefed on that exact possibility and told the decision was his, that's enough for hesitation.  There were procedures in place for a Russian attack which included, i am assuming General Arnold and the guy at NEADS issuing the order.  But not for this.

Even then how do we know it wasn't issued?  2 f-16's were launched from Langley initially with out complete destination orders.  They flew north for a bit until they got definite orders to head towards the pentagon to intercept 77.  That's shows an order was given.     

Another thing too, Rumsfeld is an administrator/politician.  He's not a military general in the field.   

That's why after 9/11 there was much criticism regarding who could issue a shoot down order.  That's fixed now and the procedure is in place for a 2 star general to  issue the order. 


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on October 12, 2011, 10:24:50 PM
OzmO, bro.  I don't think you even bothered reading my post, or you don't believe what it says: Our Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld (the top military man in the country), spent the entire time during the events, from the first attack until the last plane crashed, deliberately avoiding the people he needed to coordinate efforts with.

If you don't believe it, please look at the facts about the Pentagon as it was that morning, including statements from the Pentagon staff.

By the way, YES, an order to seek and destroy an airplane-turned-missile would have been immediately placed into effect if Rumsfeld had given one.  Of course.  And it would have saved 125+ lives.

(And to answer your question about whether we know if the shootdown order was issued at that time: we know it was not issued at that time, because it has been acknowledged that it wasn't issued until 10:20.)


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on October 13, 2011, 12:20:14 AM
OzmO, bro.  I don't think you even bothered reading my post, or you don't believe what it says: Our Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld (the top military man in the country), spent the entire time during the events, from the first attack until the last plane crashed, deliberately avoiding the people he needed to coordinate efforts with[/i
If you don't believe it, please look at the facts about the Pentagon as it was that morning, including statements from the Pentagon staff.
By the way, YES, an order to seek and destroy an airplane-turned-missile would have been immediately placed into effect if Rumsfeld had given one.  Of course.  And it would have saved 125+ lives.

(And to answer your question about whether we know if the shootdown order was issued at that time: we know it was not issued at that time, because it has been acknowledged that it wasn't issued until 10:10.)

Sorry.  Wasn't meaning to seem that way.

Yet.....  at about 9:25 2 armed f-16's were sent to the pentagon.  Someone made the order or at the very least wanted to put fighters in a position to shot a plane down so an order/decision could be made.  

I'll research Rumsfeld a bit, but i think you are missing the point about who's responsibility it was to make a decision like that and Rumsfeld's role in live military operations.  I think you are putting too much on Rumsfeld.  He's the defense secretary, not the president and not a military general.  He decides policy, management, funding, etc.  NOT attack here, there whatever.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on October 14, 2011, 09:28:21 PM
Sorry.  Wasn't meaning to seem that way.

Yet.....  at about 9:25 2 armed f-16's were sent to the pentagon.  Someone made the order or at the very least wanted to put fighters in a position to shot a plane down so an order/decision could be made.  

I'll research Rumsfeld a bit, but i think you are missing the point about who's responsibility it was to make a decision like that and Rumsfeld's role in live military operations.  I think you are putting too much on Rumsfeld.  He's the defense secretary, not the president and not a military general.  He decides policy, management, funding, etc.  NOT attack here, there whatever.


Please research it.  The Secretary of Defense would have been the person to issue the command to the military in this case.  Absolutely, positively, YES.  He and the President are to be in agreement, a 5 second phone call would suffice for that part, and the order is 100% legal.  It would have saved 125 lives or more.

I will tell you this: I have read and/or watched every single mention I could find that involves Rumfeld's activities that morning, including the interviews he himself has given.  I have also read corresponding information in the 911 Commission Report.  If someone has something different, step right up.  I'd love to see it.

From the time the first plane was hijacked, throughout and after the two towers were attacked, until nearly 30 minutes after the Pentagon itself was attacked, Rumsfeld did NOT consult with, coordinate with, strategize with, or even speak with anyone from the military in regard to planning a reaction.

As a matter of fact, he left his office without notifying his command staff, thereby making it impossible for the military coordinators to locate him for a half of an hour.  

He willingly placed himself in a position that made communication impossible.  I'd like someone to disprove this.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on October 16, 2011, 07:44:02 AM
So just so I understand this right....  Your contention is that Rumsfeld's actions support the theory that he was the person charged with the rsonsibility to issue the order to shoot down a civilian passenger plane and purposely delayed the order?


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on October 16, 2011, 09:33:50 AM
So just so I understand this right....  Your contention is that Rumsfeld's actions support the theory that he was the person charged with the rsonsibility to issue the order to shoot down a civilian passenger plane and purposely delayed the order?

Yes. The order to shoot down a passenger plane would have had to be delivered to the military from Donald Rumsfeld's own mouth. This was the legal reality.

But Donald Rumsfeld chose NOT to participate in the emergency response meeting that was immediately created during the second plane hit; he simply told his staff to "wait" for him there. Instead, he remained in his office with a single CIA assistant (with whom he had a previously scheduled daily briefing). He remained there for 30 precious minutes until the Pentagon itself was hit, at which time he left his office without informing his staff, thereby dodging the attempts of the military coordinators who were trying to find him.

Leader of the National Military Command Center: "For 30 minutes we couldn't find him."

The 911 Commission: "We still don't have a full accounting of Rumsfeld's whereabouts and knowledge on the morning of 9-11"

Again, to make sure we're perfectly clear, he deliberately thwarted the chain of command from forming.

I would ask anyone to prove otherwise.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: 240 is Back on October 16, 2011, 09:49:05 AM
Can you list that evidence of explosions before the plane hit?  And is it only witness testimony?

photographs show a half-dozen clocks that all stopped at 9:32 am.

the official report said the plane hit at 9:37 am.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: 240 is Back on October 16, 2011, 09:50:58 AM
'IF IF IF there was a 911 conspiracy that we were running-

Then rummy was in a room watching that AWAC plane (the big white one photographed or witnessedat all 3 scenes), making sure everything was running accoring to schedule.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: chaos on October 16, 2011, 12:58:08 PM
'IF IF IF there was a 911 conspiracy that we were running-

Then rummy was in a room watching that AWAC plane (the big white one photographed or witnessedat all 3 scenes), making sure everything was running accoring to schedule.
Pics of said aircraft at all 3 scenes? Pics proving it is the same aircraft or just random airplanes? White is a fiarly common color when it comes to planes. :)


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on October 16, 2011, 07:17:49 PM
Jack,  I will be traveling for the next 10 days or so.  I will respond just not always as fast.  I will be researching a few things a bit more.  Thanks.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on October 17, 2011, 06:37:13 PM
Jack,  I will be traveling for the next 10 days or so.  I will respond just not always as fast.  I will be researching a few things a bit more.  Thanks.

I hope you have a good trip!  Take care.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on October 17, 2011, 09:42:28 PM
I came across a good article about the white plane.  Will post here if I can find it.  There were reports of it on network newscasts, etc., and it is referred to by many as the "Doomsday Plane".


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on October 20, 2011, 07:48:01 PM
The white plane I mentioned is probably different than what 240 was referring to.

The article was about a white plane that had been seen over the White House by scores of people, and apparently was flown there during the attacks.  It had also been involved in drills that morning.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on October 20, 2011, 08:16:52 PM
The white plane I mentioned is probably different than what 240 was referring to.

The article was about a white plane that had been seen over the White House by scores of people, and apparently was flown there during the attacks.  It had also been involved in drills that morning.

There was even some pics somewhere wasn't there?

I think I remember something about that when it was happening.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: 240 is Back on October 20, 2011, 11:43:48 PM
there's lots of video of the plane.
lots of jim mickaleshefski talking about it.

maybe i just have an awesome memory.. but don't most of us have good memories of that morning?  Don't you remember all the cameras zooming in?

eh, screw it.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on October 21, 2011, 07:56:03 AM
there's lots of video of the plane.
lots of jim mickaleshefski talking about it.

maybe i just have an awesome memory.. but don't most of us have good memories of that morning?  Don't you remember all the cameras zooming in?

eh, screw it.

So?


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on October 21, 2011, 08:37:49 PM
There was even some pics somewhere wasn't there?

I think I remember something about that when it was happening.

Yes, the evidence is strong that this thing was at the White House and elsewhere.  I haven't gotten into this particular story too far, but there is a good argument to say it was an E-4B, which is a "doomsday plane" or close to it.

For myself, I just can't get past the behavior that morning.  The fact that it required Rumsfeld and Bush to be in agreement to start the only conceivable action we could take under this threat, yet neither one contacted the other during the attacks.

And that Rumsfeld deliberately avoided speaking with anyone from the military command during the attacks is even more unimaginable.  But that's exactly what happened.

I can't see an innocent explanation.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on October 21, 2011, 10:36:37 PM
Yeah, but we dont know that as much of the actual conversations would likely be classified.

Because. I am traveling I really haven't had the time to research more, but the actions of the military don't in my mind point to a purposeful delay.  Ordering the shooting down of passeneger plane is not that easy or simple being that the chance of a mistake would have been real high in the middle of the chaos.  They would have to get near it, identify,then verify.  It looked like they were in the process of doing just that.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: 240 is Back on October 22, 2011, 05:37:26 AM
Yeah, but we dont know that as much of the actual conversations would likely be classified.

Because. I am traveling I really haven't had the time to research more, but the actions of the military don't in my mind point to a purposeful delay.  Ordering the shooting down of passeneger plane is not that easy or simple being that the chance of a mistake would have been real high in the middle of the chaos.  They would have to get near it, identify,then verify.  It looked like they were in the process of doing just that.

flight 93 left 2 big piles of debris.  One which was likely from the initial 'strafing' - machine gun fire from the airplane warning it - then a second which took it down.

I can agree with the US govt not releasing details.  The people on board probably didn't drive it into the ground.  They all probably shit their pants as an F16 fired on it with machine guns to warn it.  Then, seconds later, they blew it up.  Look at this map.  Pretty clear to me that "let's roll" with a perfecly plane nose diving into a neat little hole - just doesn't make sense.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on October 22, 2011, 07:50:56 AM
One part at a time bro one part at a time.   :)

We are on flight 77.  Do you still believe it was a missle? 



Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: 240 is Back on October 22, 2011, 10:39:59 AM
One part at a time bro one part at a time.   :)

We are on flight 77.  Do you still believe it was a missle?

I believe an adequate investigation (which will never happen) would tell us that.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on October 22, 2011, 08:19:17 PM
Yeah, but we dont know that as much of the actual conversations would likely be classified.

OzmO, there weren't any conversations.

Because. I am traveling I really haven't had the time to research more, but the actions of the military don't in my mind point to a purposeful delay.  Ordering the shooting down of passeneger plane is not that easy or simple being that the chance of a mistake would have been real high in the middle of the chaos.  They would have to get near it, identify,then verify.  It looked like they were in the process of doing just that.

Are you saying that Rumsfeld felt it may be too difficult to track this plane, and therefore chose not to meet with the military command or to speak with Bush?


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: crownshep on October 26, 2011, 10:41:25 AM
I came across a good article about the white plane.  Will post here if I can find it.  There were reports of it on network newscasts, etc., and it is referred to by many as the "Doomsday Plane".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMK5bmdAEHc


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on October 28, 2011, 02:38:20 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMK5bmdAEHc

Good video.  It would be pretty hard to deny this thing was flying around D.C. that morning.  The only question is what it was doing there.  I guess it's just something to put aside for now, until it has more meaning.

Funny seeing Lee Hamilton.  He's been known to physically run away from people when they ask questions he doesn't want to answer.  The 911 Commission was a really terrible joke on the people of this country.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on November 07, 2011, 11:32:17 AM
OzmO, there weren't any conversations.

Are you saying that Rumsfeld felt it may be too difficult to track this plane, and therefore chose not to meet with the military command or to speak with Bush?

The problem is we will never know all of the conversations that took place with Rumsfeld.   Obviously some of it would be classified.  So we only get to go from what we know.  But to think he didn't talk to anyone for a significant length of time during the attacks seems very unlikely.

and...............What i am saying is that issuing an order to shoot a passenger plane down in the middle of many other planes flying around in the chaos of the situation, not knowing it's target, not knowing for sure which one it is from Rumsfeld's view, etc. would have been very irresponsible and could have easily resulted in the shooting down of the wrong plane.  It would have been an emotional reaction to issue an order to start shooting down passenger planes.  It's far more level headed and prudent to at the very least issue the order at the time an opportunity to shoot down a hijacked passenger plane heading towards a target when a fighter is in range and the threat is identified beyond a reasonable doubt.  I applaud our military and its leadership in that particular regard.

BTW from what i understand NORAD, at 10:10 went to defcon 3.  However it should be noted long before that armed planes were up and vectored towards the pentagon.  

Also, if he knew and or deliberately thwarted the attack on the pentagon plane wouldn't that be kind of dumb considering he was at the pentagon?

So the way i see it, there isn't really any evidence that he "prevented" defending the pentagon or shooting down flight 77.  There's too many other things and people involved and no direct evidence and not really any indirect evidence.

I used to think that maybe BUSH and Co. knew about it before hand and choose not to stop it from happening.  But the more and more i researched it over the years the less i think of that as a possibility.  (not that we would ever be privy to any evidence pointing in that direction)





Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on November 07, 2011, 07:19:49 PM
The problem is we will never know all of the conversations that took place with Rumsfeld.   Obviously some of it would be classified.  So we only get to go from what we know.  But to think he didn't talk to anyone for a significant length of time during the attacks seems very unlikely.

and...............What i am saying is that issuing an order to shoot a passenger plane down in the middle of many other planes flying around in the chaos of the situation, not knowing it's target, not knowing for sure which one it is from Rumsfeld's view, etc. would have been very irresponsible and could have easily resulted in the shooting down of the wrong plane.  It would have been an emotional reaction to issue an order to start shooting down passenger planes.  It's far more level headed and prudent to at the very least issue the order at the time an opportunity to shoot down a hijacked passenger plane heading towards a target when a fighter is in range and the threat is identified beyond a reasonable doubt.  I applaud our military and its leadership in that particular regard.

BTW from what i understand NORAD, at 10:10 went to defcon 3.  However it should be noted long before that armed planes were up and vectored towards the pentagon.  

Also, if he knew and or deliberately thwarted the attack on the pentagon plane wouldn't that be kind of dumb considering he was at the pentagon?

So the way i see it, there isn't really any evidence that he "prevented" defending the pentagon or shooting down flight 77.  There's too many other things and people involved and no direct evidence and not really any indirect evidence.

I used to think that maybe BUSH and Co. knew about it before hand and choose not to stop it from happening.  But the more and more i researched it over the years the less i think of that as a possibility.  (not that we would ever be privy to any evidence pointing in that direction)





OzmO, what were the things that once led you to believe it was allowed to happen?


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on November 08, 2011, 09:17:07 AM
At first it was BUSH's initial reaction while in the classroom. Then when you see the connections with the Saudi's it's an easy thing to suspect.  But, I really don't think so now.  Mainly because there will never be any way we will ever know and the idea that many upper level people would have had to know and would have the blood of 3000 innocent people on their hands.  You have to be pretty psychotic to be able to continue to live life with that and I doubt a group of our upper leadership is that whacked that no one's guilt would have over took them and cause them to com forward by now. 


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on November 08, 2011, 09:22:39 PM
To be honest, I think Bush is exactly what he seems to be.  I don't think he has the capacity to be guilty of anything but brainlessness.

As to the period before the attacks, these individuals were reported to investigators during the time they were taking flight classes, yet they weren't placed under surveillance.  SO...despite being what were obvious hijackers in the making, they were not placed under surveillance.  This would be outrageous at any time, but keep in mind: we had been receiving frantic information about hijacking plots from practically every civilized country in the world.

Now, with that firmly in mind, let me clarify something about this:

But to think he didn't talk to anyone for a significant length of time during the attacks seems very unlikely.

It does seem unlikely.  But it is exactly what happened.  It is not hidden, it is not classified, it is not in any way unknown.  It is also exactly as the 911 Commission has recorded.  

So...from the time the first plane was hijacked, until after the last plane crashed, Donald Rumsfeld did NOT meet with, look at, or in any way speak with anyone from the miltary chain of command.  This is fact.  As his assistants were "waiting" for him in the emergency meeting, he continued with his normal agenda for the day.

I know it seems unbelievable, OzmO, but it is exactly what happened.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on November 08, 2011, 09:27:40 PM
By the way, I'd have to say the belated NORAD flights that launched at 9:25 were in response to a lack of any other order. 

If the citizens were feeling anxious about what they were witnessing, you can imagine how the people at NORAD were feeling.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on November 09, 2011, 12:40:53 PM
To be honest, I think Bush is exactly what he seems to be.  I don't think he has the capacity to be guilty of anything but brainlessness.

I don't think so.  He comes across that way but he's smart enough. 

Quote
As to the period before the attacks, these individuals were reported to investigators during the time they were taking flight classes, yet they weren't placed under surveillance.  SO...despite being what were obvious hijackers in the making, they were not placed under surveillance.  This would be outrageous at any time, but keep in mind: we had been receiving frantic information about hijacking plots from practically every civilized country in the world.

Remember this is hindsight, and hindsight is very clear.  We receive thousands of bits of intel a day.  Prior to 9/11 that intel was spread across several agencies.  These agencies didn't communicate with each other.  In fact there was a rival relationship between them.  So its very hard prove anything prior knowledge. 

Another thing i should add:  There are quite a few people and organizations that would gain considerably if they  had even had a quasi-provable case.  Believe me, they would be all over this.   What happen on 9/11 was an intelligence failure, plain and simple.  Since then how  these agencies communicate and share info has changed.



Quote
It does seem unlikely.  But it is exactly what happened.  It is not hidden, it is not classified, it is not in any way unknown.  It is also exactly as the 911 Commission has recorded.  

So...from the time the first plane was hijacked, until after the last plane crashed, Donald Rumsfeld did NOT meet with, look at, or in any way speak with anyone from the miltary chain of command.  This is fact.  As his assistants were "waiting" for him in the emergency meeting, he continued with his normal agenda for the day.

I know it seems unbelievable, OzmO, but it is exactly what happened.

I am kind of confused about  how you are supporting your argument. 

First off, the NIST/911 commission report would be free of classified info.  So i don't know why you are insistent on using that detail in the report as irrefutable truth. 

Secondly, even if he did not (which is highly unlikely when adding common sense), so what?  Again doesn't prove much and certainly doesn't prove he deliberately prevented hijacked planes from being shot down through his inaction.   

By the way, I'd have to say the belated NORAD flights that launched at 9:25 were in response to a lack of any other order. 

If the citizens were feeling anxious about what they were witnessing, you can imagine how the people at NORAD were feeling.

You are forgetting to take into account the defense posture of the moment in that the availability of armed jets in the area and in the time frame.  (something that will likely be classified) And still yet, they got one over there and just missed it. 


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on November 09, 2011, 01:43:49 PM
OzmO, I have to ask you to about something here:

First off, the NIST/911 commission report would be free of classified info.  So i don't know why you are insistent on using that detail in the report as irrefutable truth.

Are you saying you believe a meeting may have taken place between Donald Rumsfeld and the military command, and that the identities of the participants as well as the existence of the meeting itself were classified, or...?


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on November 09, 2011, 02:04:36 PM
OzmO, I have to ask you to about something here:

Are you saying you believe a meeting may have taken place between Donald Rumsfeld and the military command, and that the identities of the participants as well as the existence of the meeting itself were classified, or...?

He might have been on a secure phone with any number of people in that period of time.  He may have been in secure video contact with the president or NORAD discussing any number of classified issues concerning the attacks.  He may have been having a meltdown curled up in the fetal position on the floor of his office while BUSH consoled him over the speaker phone.  Who knows?


Points are:

- The argument of him not doing anything isn't provable.
- The argument of him being "the only one" to issue the order isn't true
- The argument of us having plenty of time and weapons to vector a fighter into an unknown location to an unidentified target considering available weapons, defense posture, protocol, and the gargantuan decision of shooting down a passenger plane, doesn't hold.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on November 09, 2011, 03:00:37 PM
He might have been on a secure phone with any number of people in that period of time.  He may have been in secure video contact with the president or NORAD discussing any number of classified issues concerning the attacks.  He may have been having a meltdown curled up in the fetal position on the floor of his office while BUSH consoled him over the speaker phone.  Who knows?

I would assume HE knows.  By his own words, he was in his office with a single CIA briefer with whom he had a previously scheduled briefing.  He was fulfilling his already scheduled agenda for the day.  That's what he was doing.

- The argument of him not doing anything isn't provable.

Again, by his own words, he was completing the items on his daily schedule.  That's what he was doing.

- The argument of him being "the only one" to issue the order isn't true

The president and the secretary of defense were to be in agreement in a situation like this.  It was the law.  If you don't believe me, and you're unwilling to verify it for yourself, I don't know what to say.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on November 09, 2011, 03:07:02 PM
An interesting excerpt from an article in the Los Angeles Times:

Quote
Rumsfeld was missing in action that morning, 'out of the loop' by his own admission. For more than two hours after the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) became aware that the first plane had been violently overtaken by Middle Eastern men, the man whose job it was to order air cover over Washington did not show up in the Pentagon's command center. It took him almost two hours to 'gain situational awareness,' he told the commission. He didn't speak to the vice president until 10:39 a.m., according to the report. Since that was more than 30 minutes after the last hijacked plane crashed, it would seem to be an admission of dereliction of duty.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on November 09, 2011, 03:26:05 PM
I would assume HE knows.  By his own words, he was in his office with a single CIA briefer with whom he had a previously scheduled briefing.  He was fulfilling his already scheduled agenda for the day.  That's what he was doing.

Again, by his own words, he was completing the items on his daily schedule.  That's what he was doing.

So?  Are you expecting that by his statement he was fully disclosing "everything" he was doing? 


Quote
The president and the secretary of defense were to be in agreement in a situation like this.  It was the law.  If you don't believe me, and you're unwilling to verify it for yourself, I don't know what to say.


I am not arguing about issue with the "law".  From what i remember, 3 people had that authority, The president, Rumsfeld and the commanding general at NORAD. 


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on November 09, 2011, 03:40:14 PM
An interesting excerpt from an article in the Los Angeles Times:


Its a criticism of how he handled the situation.  Not only that, he was also criticized by his colleagues.  However it's nothing close to legit evidence indicating he "let" it happen.  And still there's the issue of him being at the pentagon. 

Also, remember again.....this all happened in a period of mere minutes, just over an hour. 


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on November 09, 2011, 04:35:29 PM
So?  Are you expecting that by his statement he was fully disclosing "everything" he was doing?

Are you saying he was secretly doing things with secret people, and all of this is just a cover?

I am not arguing about issue with the "law".  From what i remember, 3 people had that authority, The president, Rumsfeld and the commanding general at NORAD.

Bush and Rumsfeld held joint power in such a situation.  It is exactly as it sounds. 

The NORAD commander would have authority to shoot down something that was an obvious threat, but his words to the 911 Commission indicated that he felt Rumsfeld would have had to authorize any shootdown, including "a balloon".

Its a criticism of how he handled the situation.  Not only that, he was also criticized by his colleagues.

Why do you think that is?

However it's nothing close to legit evidence indicating he "let" it happen.

What is it evidence of? 

And still there's the issue of him being at the pentagon.

The hit was on the opposite side of the complex.  He wasn't in any danger in his office.

Also, remember again.....this all happened in a period of mere minutes, just over an hour.

We were under attack for nearly two hours.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on November 09, 2011, 05:07:19 PM
Are you saying he was secretly doing things with secret people, and all of this is just a cover?

No, i am only making the point that we are not privy to exactly what he was doing.

Quote
Bush and Rumsfeld held joint power in such a situation.  It is exactly as it sounds. 

The NORAD commander would have authority to shoot down something that was an obvious threat, but his words to the 911 Commission indicated that he felt Rumsfeld would have had to authorize any shootdown, including "a balloon".

Only shows part of the confusion concerning what to do and how to make the decision.  In 1999 it was established that only the president could issue the order. (CNN article)  later in 2004 as reported by the New York Observer, Rumsfeld, by 9/11 had the authority also.  NORAD Commander Larry Arnold stated in 2003 that on 9/11, “I have the authority in case of an emergency to declare a target hostile and shoot it down under an emergency condition.”

So all three of them could have.  None of them had establish ROE's, protocols and or weren't, as far as we know, faced with the immediate decision to pull the trigger.

Quote
Why do you think that is?

Cause it points to a level of indecision and incompetence.  Very common in the corporate world let me tell you lol.  So i am not surprised of that in the administration/political end of the military. 

This is why after 9/11 the decision rests with a 2-star general. 

Quote
What is it evidence of? 

Nearly every point i have been making.

Quote
The hit was on the opposite side of the complex.  He wasn't in any danger in his office.

Sure he was.  Unless of course you believe things like this always go as planned and are willing to stake your life on it. 

Quote
We were under attack for nearly two hours.

In the area of the pentagon attacks and your assertion of his deliberate failure to issue and shoot down order---Minutes


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on November 09, 2011, 06:42:42 PM
No, i am only making the point that we are not privy to exactly what he was doing.

We do know.  He has told us he continued with his scheduled tasks for the day.

Only shows part of the confusion concerning what to do and how to make the decision.  In 1999 it was established that only the president could issue the order. (CNN article)  later in 2004 as reported by the New York Observer, Rumsfeld, by 9/11 had the authority also.

So do you think Rumsfeld was hoping that the NORAD commander would handle it, and therefore chose not to communicate with the military or Bush?

NORAD Commander Larry Arnold stated in 2003 that on 9/11, “I have the authority in case of an emergency to declare a target hostile and shoot it down under an emergency condition.”

So all three of them could have.  None of them had establish ROE's, protocols and or weren't, as far as we know, faced with the immediate decision to pull the trigger.

Again, Bush and Rumsfeld had joint power, and were to be in agreement.

Please recall that the NORAD commander told the 911 Commission that he believed Rumsfeld's authority was required for any shootdown order.  These were his thoughts on the morning in question.  So what he said in 2003 apparently wasn't what he was thinking at the time.
 
Sure he was.  Unless of course you believe things like this always go as planned and are willing to stake your life on it. 

Perhaps he felt confident enough to do it.  Much stranger things have happened.  The Pentagon is a massive complex.

In the area of the pentagon attacks and your assertion of his deliberate failure to issue and shoot down order---Minutes

He deliberately avoided any situation where he would even have to discuss such an order.  That's the point.  And it is a huge point.



Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on November 10, 2011, 10:32:12 AM
We do know.  He has told us he continued with his scheduled tasks for the day.

Do you really believe Rumsfeld would disclose everything?  Because if you do..........I have a bridge for sale  ;D

Quote
So do you think Rumsfeld was hoping that the NORAD commander would handle it, and therefore chose not to communicate with the military or Bush?
Nope.  
Quote
Again, Bush and Rumsfeld had joint power, and were to be in agreement.
Please recall that the NORAD commander told the 911 Commission that he believed Rumsfeld's authority was required for any shootdown order.  These were his thoughts on the morning in question.  So what he said in 2003 apparently wasn't what he was thinking at the time.
Perhaps he felt confident enough to do it.  Much stranger things have happened.  The Pentagon is a massive complex.
He deliberately avoided any situation where he would even have to discuss such an order.  That's the point.  And it is a huge point.

Instead of trying to answer each question and risking getting lost in to many other directions I will try and paint another picture of what happened.

8:46  WTC 1 gets hit.  (most outside of NYC and those who didn't witness the plane hitting it initially think its an accident)

9:03 Pentagon learns (watching on TV) of WTC 2 getting hit and the Operations officer at the pentagon, Dan Mangino acknowledges its a terrorist attack.

9:29 26 Minutes later a significant events conference call is held at the NMCC (National Military Command Center) where they try to get the FAA and other departments and agencies in on the call.  have you ever had a conference call with lots of people?  It takes a few minutes to get it going and considering the phones were likely all in use through out the pentagon it might have taken even more time.

Shortly before 9:37  A Navy intel unit learns of a 3rd hijacked plane approaching Washington from a phone call from the National Military Joint Intelligence Center (NMJIC) also located in the pentagon. (remember the pentagon is a huge place)  Around 9:30 there’s a (later to be known as false) report  that flight 11 is still flying around and the on duty commander of the intel unit interrupts the conference call to report the 3rd hijacked plane. (around9:34)

9:37 Pentagon hit.

So look here’s the deal:
  
34 minutes after  the second plane gets WTC 2 the pentagon was hit.  At about 8:57 the transponder shuts off on Flight 77 and the civilian AT controller handling the flight initially thinks it’s a malfunction not a hijack.    Its looks like it takes them about 30 minutes for the ATC to communicate with the military and the military to determine its certainly a hijacked flight and where it might be going.) By 9:30 F-16s are scrambled and put in a holding pattern. (because they don't fully know who when and where yet) By 9:34, 31 minutes later its reported to the pentagon (by the NMJIC) as a possible threat to Washington DC.   3 minutes later about the time the pentagon is hit these fighters are sent there. (129 miles away)

Now remember before I go on:

-   It’s 9:34
-   They didn’t know the target
-   They didn’t have solid indication of its position (just a general area)
-   There’s still lots of planes flying up there
-   They had already scrambled up a couple of armed F-16 into a holding patterned and they eventually
vectored them to Washington only to get there minutes to late.

So yes we are under terrorist attack at 9:03  

-   We don’t know were the next attack is coming from.
-   We don’t know if there is even a next attack coming
-   We are still in reaction mode which means a certain level of hysteria, fragmented information, lack of a clear picture.
  
It would have been pure incompetence to issue a shoot down order at 9:03 on a hijacked plane that didn’t exist yet.  Wasn’t identified, and who’s target was unknown.

So this why i don't see Rumsfeld or Arnold deliberately failing in their duty to order a shoot down of the plane that hit the pentagon.  




Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on November 10, 2011, 01:28:00 PM
8:46  WTC 1 gets hit.  (most outside of NYC and those who didn't witness the plane hitting it initially think its an accident)

9:03 Pentagon learns (watching on TV) of WTC 2 getting hit and the Operations officer at the pentagon, Dan Mangino acknowledges its a terrorist attack.

9:29 26 Minutes later a significant events conference call is held at the NMCC (National Military Command Center) where they try to get the FAA and other departments and agencies in on the call.  have you ever had a conference call with lots of people?  It takes a few minutes to get it going and considering the phones were likely all in use through out the pentagon it might have taken even more time.

Shortly before 9:37  A Navy intel unit learns of a 3rd hijacked plane approaching Washington from a phone call from the National Military Joint Intelligence Center (NMJIC) also located in the pentagon. (remember the pentagon is a huge place)  Around 9:30 there’s a (later to be known as false) report  that flight 11 is still flying around and the on duty commander of the intel unit interrupts the conference call to report the 3rd hijacked plane. (around9:34)

9:37 Pentagon hit.

So look here’s the deal:
  
34 minutes after  the second plane gets WTC 2 the pentagon was hit.  At about 8:57 the transponder shuts off on Flight 77 and the civilian AT controller handling the flight initially thinks it’s a malfunction not a hijack.    Its looks like it takes them about 30 minutes for the ATC to communicate with the military and the military to determine its certainly a hijacked flight and where it might be going.) By 9:30 F-16s are scrambled and put in a holding pattern. (because they don't fully know who when and where yet) By 9:34, 31 minutes later its reported to the pentagon (by the NMJIC) as a possible threat to Washington DC.   3 minutes later about the time the pentagon is hit these fighters are sent there. (129 miles away)

Now remember before I go on:

-   It’s 9:34
-   They didn’t know the target
-   They didn’t have solid indication of its position (just a general area)
-   There’s still lots of planes flying up there
-   They had already scrambled up a couple of armed F-16 into a holding patterned and they eventually
vectored them to Washington only to get there minutes to late.

So yes we are under terrorist attack at 9:03  

-   We don’t know were the next attack is coming from.
-   We don’t know if there is even a next attack coming
-   We are still in reaction mode which means a certain level of hysteria, fragmented information, lack of a clear picture.
  
It would have been pure incompetence to issue a shoot down order at 9:03 on a hijacked plane that didn’t exist yet.  Wasn’t identified, and who’s target was unknown.

So this why i don't see Rumsfeld or Arnold deliberately failing in their duty to order a shoot down of the plane that hit the pentagon.  

This sounds very similar to the official story.  It fails to explain why, for nearly two hours of attack, Rumsfeld did not speak with the military and did not speak with Bush, and why this fact should not defy every ounce of logic in any would-be believer.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on November 10, 2011, 02:47:05 PM
This sounds very similar to the official story.  It fails to explain why, for nearly two hours of attack, Rumsfeld did not speak with the military and did not speak with Bush, and why this fact should not defy every ounce of logic in any would-be believer.

Parts of what i wrote are from various sources some of which were used in the official story.  And the official story does explain why.

But....

What difference does it make whether he spoke to anyone or not?  He's not a General.  He not a General in the field.  He's a politician, an administrator.  That's why the ROE's concerning shooting down a hijacked civilian plane were drastically rewritten after 9/11

However, he did speak to people:

8:00-8:50 breakfast meeting with: Navy Vice Admiral Edmund Giambastiani Jr.; Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz; Pete Geren, a special assistant to Rumsfeld; and Representatives John Mica (R-FL), Mark Steven Kirk (R-IL), Mac Thornberry (R-TX), Roger Wicker (R-MS), Robin Hayes (R-NC), Doug Bereuter (R-NE), John Hostettler (R-IN), Kay Granger (R-TX), John Shimkus (R-IL), Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R-CA), and Christopher Cox (R-CA).

8:46 Larry Di Rita, a special assistant to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, gives rumdfeld note about a plane hitting WTC1 and not knowing it was a terrorist attack and everyone assuming it was a accident.

9:03  in Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz's office discussing meeting and turns TV on to see second plane hit WTC2

9:37 when pentagon was hit Rumsfeld in his office receiving daily briefing.

9:38 heads towards crash site.

9:38 to 10:00 spends time at crash site.

According to some accounts BUSH gave the shoot down order at 10:00am and discussed ROE with Rumsfeld.  (which BTW is the right thing to do)

I can give you a link if you need to verify this, but i am sure you can find it yourself.  Its was from a Washington Post article.

Now, yes, you are correct there are some periods of time the Rumsfeld is unaccounted for.  I have reasonably showed that we dont have the ability to know exactly who he did or did not speak with in every second of the time period.

So your point about the 2 hours is rhetorical fluff.  

I have clearly shown we did not know if there was a third plane at the time of the second planes impact and i have also shown that we did know who where or what between 9:03 and 9:34.

Seriously Jack.  There's nothing there to argue Rumsfeld or Bush or Arnold deliberately delayed a shoot down order and there fore that's why the pentagon was hit.  

PS:  I am not saying he or the military handled it properly.  


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on November 10, 2011, 05:11:24 PM
No, you don't need to link me.  I'm familiar with the official story.

And the official story does explain why.

Where?

What difference does it make whether he spoke to anyone or not?

The fact that he did not speak with Bush and that he did not speak with the military makes all the difference in the world:

Quote from: United States Department of Defense
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

As a side note, a 1986 reorganization directly connected the Secretary of Defense with the military commanders, as the Joint Chiefs of Staff were bypassed.

So that's why it makes a difference.  It makes ALL the difference.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on November 10, 2011, 05:43:50 PM

it doesnt make a difference in the context of your charge.  Especially when you understand there wasn't  a protocol or a preparation for an attack like this.

And still he did speak with Bush and an order was made.  The timing of the attacks,the information available to our military, and the lack of preparation and protocol for an attack like this prevented the order from being given earlier.

Don't get me wrong it's a fair criticism directed at how it was handled but it's NOT evidence of a deliberate plan to let the pentagon get hit.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on November 10, 2011, 08:41:34 PM
it doesnt make a difference in the context of your charge.  Especially when you understand there wasn't  a protocol or a preparation for an attack like this.

If that's the case, do you suppose Rumsfeld decided he should ponder the uncertain situation by himself in his office, rather than with the military and/or Bush? 

And still he did speak with Bush and an order was made.

They spoke at approximately 10:00, after the attack had been effectively completed, and more than an hour and a half after it began.  As a matter of fact, even that did not produce an order of any kind. According to the 911 Commission, the first mention of a shootdown order wasn't until 10:20--two hours after the attack started.

The timing of the attacks,the information available to our military, and the lack of preparation and protocol for an attack like this prevented the order from being given earlier.

Again, if that is the case, do you think Rumsfeld decided it would be better to ponder all of this uncertainty by himself, rather than with the military and/or Bush?


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on November 11, 2011, 08:49:08 AM
You are back to that 2 hour thing (rhetorical fluff).  You remember back in this thread when you said after the second plane hit there should have been no doubt we were being attacked?  That happened at 903.  Rumsfeld was in wolfowitz office.  From about that point to 937 he was unaccounted for. Not until 930 were they sure:

A. A plane had been hijacked
B. where it was heading,
but C. Didn't know it's exact target.

You keep criticizing Rumfeld as if he wasn't "manning" his post.  But you are doing as if he did it intentionally so as to let flight 77 hit the pentagon.  Which is seems really insane considering you have a poorly trained terrorist pilot who could hit anywhere in the building and or you are trusting your intel that they will hit it right where they did.  

Rumsfeld wasn't a General.  He's not tactically in command.  That's what the military command is for.  They direct the defense and response.  Only at 930 did they know the A, B, & C, I was talking about.  7 minutes later the pentagon gets hit and then he's at the crash site helping.  By 10 he's talking to the president.

So there's nothing there to point to what you charge.

What was he doing from 9:03 to 9:37?  Who was he talking to?  There's no need to speculate because we will not be privy to what he really was doing.  And they didn't know until 930 A or B


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on November 11, 2011, 01:16:09 PM
You are back to that 2 hour thing (rhetorical fluff).

It was two hours before an executive order was issued.  This is a fact.

You remember back in this thread when you said after the second plane hit there should have been no doubt we were being attacked?  That happened at 903.  Rumsfeld was in wolfowitz office. From about that point to 937 he was unaccounted for.

Please look again.  During this period, he was in his office to receive a previously scheduled daily briefing, while his staff "waited" for him in a room where they were to have a meeting to discuss orders.

So rather than be linked to the military command in an emergency meeting, he chose to spend the time on his routine daily schedule.  This is a fact.  

Not until 930 were they sure: A. A plane had been hijacked B. where it was heading, but C. Didn't know it's exact target.

You keep criticizing Rumfeld as if he wasn't "manning" his post.  But you are doing as if he did it intentially so as to let flight 77 hit the pentagon.  Which is seems really insane considering you have a poorly trained terrorist pilot who could hit anywhere in the building and or you are trusting your intel that they will hit it right where they did.  Rumsfeld wasn't a General.  He's not tactically in command.  That's what the military command is for.  They direct the defense and response.  Only at 930 did they know the A, B, & C, I was talking about.  7 minutes later the pentagon gets hit and then he's at the crash site helping.  By 10 he's talking to the president.

So there's nothing there to point to what you charge.

What was he doing from 9:03 to 9:37?  Who was he talking to?  There's no need to speculate because we will not be privy to what he really was doing.  And they didn't know until 930 A or B

Again, we know that he was in his office during this time period, completing his routine daily tasks.  He chose to do this rather than to be linked with the military or to communicate with his president.

This needs to be made perfectly clear.  We were under attack, our citizens were being killed, a room was set up for an emergency meeting to respond to this, but he chose instead to spend his time on a routine schedule--away from anyone with whom he would be faced with the inevitable discussion of orders.  

These are the facts.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on November 11, 2011, 01:31:31 PM
It was two hours before an executive order was issued.  This is a fact.

Again, rhetorical fluff.  We didn't have a target.  You don't issue orders to shoot something down with out a target especially when there was no target.

So "two hours" is not a fact unless you are into rhetorical fluff.  I am not.

Quote
Please look again.  During this period, he was in his office to receive a previously scheduled daily briefing, while his staff "waited" for him in a room where they were to have a meeting to discuss orders.

So rather than be linked to the military command in an emergency meeting, he chose to spend the time on his routine daily schedule.  This is a fact. 

No its not.  More Rhetorical fluff.

9:03 is the exact time Rumsfeld and everyone else at the pentagon realized it was an attack.  He was in wolfowitz's office at the time.  And again, he's not a front line General.  Do you think the DS is currently personally directing operations in Afghanistan?  This is where you are very mistaken about the DS's role in a military situation. 

Quote
Again, we know that he was in his office during this time period, completing his routine daily tasks.  He chose to do this rather than to be linked with the military or to communicate with his president.

This needs to be made perfectly clear.  We were under attack, our citizens were being killed, a room was set up for an emergency meeting to respond to this, but he chose instead to spend his time on a routine schedule--away from anyone with whom he would be faced with the inevitable discussion of orders. 

There's no orders to be given if there's no target.  No target/threat was determined until 9:30

With out established ROE's there was no point in issuing an order that could have brought down a civilian plane not hijacked. 

All you are showing here is the incompetence of our defenses and its system when faced with something they didn't plan or prepare for. 



Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on November 11, 2011, 01:47:59 PM
With out established ROE's there was no point in issuing an order that could have brought down a civilian plane not hijacked. 

So you're saying that Rumsfeld thought it would be best to ponder the ROE by himself in his office, rather than with the military and/or Bush?


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on November 11, 2011, 02:03:39 PM
So you're saying that Rumsfeld thought it would be best to ponder the ROE by himself in his office, rather than with the military and/or Bush?

Nope.

My belief is he was taking to one or more of the intelligence agencies about who attacked us.  But i don't know, that's just pure speculation.  Remember, a third hijacked plane was still yet to be established and identified.

What do you think he was doing?  Making sure the poorly trained unlicensed pilot flying a passenger jet for the first time didn't hit the part of the pentagon he was in?  Sorry if that sounds like i am being a smart ass,(not trying to be) but i have to ask that question.  I mean how can Rumsfeld feel the least bit safe with a fully fueled 757 coming at the building he in no matter how big the building is?

 


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on November 11, 2011, 04:54:38 PM
My belief is he was taking to one or more of the intelligence agencies about who attacked us.

He had a previously scheduled daily briefing with a CIA assistant.  He chose to take this briefing rather than to place himself in a meeting that his aide had set up--a meeting where he would have been faced with making decisions about our defense.

What do you think he was doing?

The evidence is very clear as to what he was doing.  Once again, we are talking about what he wasn't doing.  Because despite every shred of common sense, he was NOT consulting with the military, he was NOT discussing ROE with the president, he was NOT reacting in any meaningful way to the murderous events that had the entire country glued to their televisions.  Instead, he showed an inexplicable concern for routine tasks.  Think about that.
 
Making sure the poorly trained unlicensed pilot flying a passenger jet for the first time didn't hit the part of the pentagon he was in?  Sorry if that sounds like i am being a smart ass,(not trying to be) but i have to ask that question.  I mean how can Rumsfeld feel the least bit safe with a fully fueled 757 coming at the building he in no matter how big the building is?  

In a complex of nearly four million square feet, especially one that is configured as the Pentagon is, it isn't at all unreasonable to think he'd risk it.  I hope that isn't your argument.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on November 11, 2011, 05:41:57 PM
He had a previously scheduled daily briefing with a CIA assistant.  He chose to take this briefing rather than to place himself in a meeting that his aide had set up--a meeting where he would have been faced with making decisions about our defense.

That because he's not a front line field commander nor a general and at the time there was no identified threat after the second plane hit.  Do you think the briefing with the CIA agent was about anything other than the events of the day?

Quote
The evidence is very clear as to what he was doing.  Once again, we are talking about what he wasn't doing.  Because despite every shred of common sense, he was NOT consulting with the military, he was NOT discussing ROE with the president, he was NOT reacting in any meaningful way to the murderous events that had the entire country glued to their televisions.  Instead, he showed an inexplicable concern for routine tasks.  Think about that.

Its not about common sense.  Its about how the military and defense work.  We aren't playing a video game or making a action movie here.  Everything i have explained is how our real world military works.  You don't react in his position you respond.  A front line General reacts and he reacts based on his ROE's.  there were no ROE's and there were no plans or procedures for this kind of attack.  Hence the delay.
 
Quote
In a complex of nearly four million square feet, especially one that is configured as the Pentagon is, it isn't at all unreasonable to think he'd risk it.  I hope that isn't your argument.

Of course not.  Its just a side note showing how silly it would be to risk being a target of a fully fuel 757 piloted by first time partially trained pilots no matter how big the building is and therefore greatly discredits the baseless conjecture and rhetorical fluff filled speculation of thinking he purposely "let" the pentagon get hit.  The fact that you keep dismissing it is a bit mind boggling.  It's like you are trying to force a square peg in a round hole to make it fit fore going some common sense in the process.  (its not as knock to do that, its human nature to after some investigation to develop a theory about t something and then only see the things that support that theory. )

Among the many things you failed to address are the A, B and C of my previous posts.  Something that didn't become known until 9:30.  Yet you somehow you think, if i am not mistaken, that Rumsfeld should have issued a shoot down order.  to shoot down what?  there were no targets, no planes positively identified as hijacked.  As far as anyone might know at 9:03 that was the last one.  He didn't tell the military to stand down after the second plane hit.  But you believe because he didn't issue this order, what could have potentially been a catastrophic mistake, that proves he let this happen and it was part of a conspiracy.  Sorry Jack you got nothing.  Zilch.  There's nothing there.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on November 11, 2011, 06:55:45 PM
A front line General reacts and he reacts based on his ROE's.  there were no ROE's and there were no plans or procedures for this kind of attack.

So do you think Rumsfeld was trying to clarify the matter through telepathy, or...?


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on November 12, 2011, 09:52:52 AM
So do you think Rumsfeld was trying to clarify the matter through telepathy, or...?

During the video game he probably used the group chat feature.

Seriously Jack, have you read anything i have been writing or just picking out things you can apply rhetorical fluff too?


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on November 12, 2011, 12:16:01 PM
OzmO, I have read and processed every single word you have written in this thread.

You've stated that there was a lack of clarification.  I think we would agree that communication is the only way to correct a lack of clarification.  So why do you suppose Rumsfeld chose not to communicate?


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on November 12, 2011, 12:19:17 PM
OzmO, I have read and processed every single word you have written in this thread.

You've stated that there was a lack of clarification.  I think we would agree that communication is the only way to correct a lack of clarification.  So why do you suppose Rumsfeld choose not to communicate?

We don't know whether or not he did.  And it wouldn't matter anyway because of "many" of things i have already explained over and over.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on November 12, 2011, 12:29:46 PM
We don't know whether or not he did.  And it wouldn't matter anyway because of "many" of things i have already explained over and over.

Are you saying he may have secretly communicated to someone?  If so, why was there a lack of clarification?


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on November 12, 2011, 02:36:16 PM
Are you saying he may have secretly communicated to someone?  If so, why was there a lack of clarification?

Not entirely.  What i am saying is you can't and wont prove he didn't speak with any one and what he did do could have been highly classified.

ALSO, and more importantly, that it doesn't much matter in the context of your charge. 

If the commanders at NEADS, made themselves unreachable then there would be something to investigate. 


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on November 12, 2011, 05:34:34 PM
Not entirely.  What i am saying is you can't and wont prove he didn't speak with any one

Ozmo, his own words show this.

and what he did do could have been highly classified.

So do you think he secretly communicated with someone?  If he did, why was there a lack of clarification?

ALSO, and more importantly, that it doesn't much matter in the context of your charge.

It DOES matter:

Quote from: United States Department of Defense
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.

Please keep in mind, when it refers to Rumsfeld with Bush, or Rumsfeld with the military command, "speaking with someone" and "discussing orders" would have had inseparable descriptions on that morning.  Either would have immediately required the other.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on November 12, 2011, 06:09:59 PM
Ozmo, his own words show this.

So do you think he secretly communicated with someone?  If he did, why was there a lack of clarification?

It DOES matter:

Please keep in mind, when it refers to Rumsfeld with Bush, or Rumsfeld with the military command, "speaking with someone" and "discussing orders" would have had inseparable descriptions on that morning.  Either would have immediately required the other.


You are not understanding how the military works and not differentiating between a front line commander and what they do and an administrative group  in the time frame of 903 to 930.  

Also you arent understanding the possible severe consequences of a mistaken shoot down from issuing orders without clear ROE's, planning and proceedure. It's crazy, pardon me, to think:  well he didn't issue a shoot down order and he's the DS so it must be a deliberate attempt to let it happen.  It's, again pardon me, a very very naive way to logically look at something.  

Add that to the multiple of other things you are dismissing/ignoring that directly relates to your false charge and then simply picking out 1 angle that does not apply.  It might if the attacks were 3 hours apart.

And then you just keep asking  same question over and over and I keep telling you the same thing over and over.  He's not a front line commander, there were no roe, prceedures, etc.  The rest of the military was doing it's job, there no targets to shoot down etc etc etc

Add it all up, there's nothing there.  


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on November 12, 2011, 06:43:23 PM
OzmO, on the one hand you are saying that there were no rules or procedures, and on the other hand you are saying it "doesn't make a difference" that Rumseld didn't speak with anyone.

Please explain.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on November 12, 2011, 06:44:46 PM
OzmO, on the one hand you are saying that there were no rules or procedures, and on the other hand you are saying it "doesn't make a difference" that Rumseld didn't speak with anyone.

Please explain.

I have on at least 3 posts.  Maybe more.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on November 12, 2011, 07:13:07 PM
I have on at least 3 posts.  Maybe more.

You did that using a false premise that Rumseld was not in a position to issue orders.  Now that we have verified otherwise, please explain using this as a premise.

Quote from: United States Department of Defense
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.



Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on November 12, 2011, 07:22:56 PM
You did that using a false premise that Rumseld was not in a position to issue orders.  Now that we have verified otherwise, please explain using this as a premise.



That's not what I said at all.  Are you sure you are reading my posts?  Because this last post says otherwise.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on November 12, 2011, 08:27:52 PM
That's not what I said at all.  Are you sure you are reading my posts?  Because this last post says otherwise.

Yes.  Here is the premise you've been using:

Did he have the authority to order the shooting of an American civilian passenger jet?  Unless he was briefed on that exact possibility and told the decision was his, that's enough for hesitation.

No one had the authority to authorize the shooting down of a passenger jet

Your contention is that Rumsfeld's actions support the theory that he was the person charged with the rsonsibility to issue the order...?

And there was no protocol absolutely none for who decides to order the shooting down of a American passenger plane

i think you are missing the point about who's responsibility it was to make a decision like that


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on November 12, 2011, 08:55:07 PM
Way out of context on all of them.  Please go back and re-read the entire posts.  You are approaching ME now like you have been approaching this Pentagon debate, picking out things and ignoring everything else related to it.    

Quote
Quote from: OzmO on October 12, 2011, 09:06:23 PM
Did he have the authority to order the shooting of an American civilian passenger jet?  Unless he was briefed on that exact possibility and told the decision was his, that's enough for hesitation.

I was questioning whether or not he actually had the authority (because, on Oct 11th, it had been a while since i was this deep in a 9/11 debate)  Then i was showing (which i have been saying many many times in this thread) that issuing an order like that would have been very heavy, irresponsible, and potentially tragic.  

Quote
Quote from: OzmO on October 11, 2011, 12:52:31 PM
No one had the authority to authorize the shooting down of a passenger jet

Here I am talking about the front line commanders at places such as NEADS.

Quote
Quote from: OzmO on October 16, 2011, 07:44:02 AM
Your contention is that Rumsfeld's actions support the theory that he was the person charged with the rsonsibility to issue the order...?

Here i am just making sure what your contention was.  I didn't want to mistake what your charge was.

Quote
Quote from: OzmO on October 11, 2011, 10:34:31 PM
And there was no protocol absolutely none for who decides to order the shooting down of a American passenger plane
 

There's 2 things here:

1.  The power of the decision.  Who has it?  Who has the power to make a decision to shoot down and civlian passenger plane.

2.  The ROE's, Protocols of how that decision is made.  That's what Bush and Rumsfeld were talking about at 10:00am  BEcuase...............  there were none.  

Quote
Quote from: OzmO on October 13, 2011, 12:20:14 AM
i think you are missing the point about who's responsibility it was to make a decision like that

This is me introducing to you the difference between a front line general and a politician/administrator


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on November 12, 2011, 08:59:43 PM
You did that using a false premise that Rumseld was not in a position to issue orders.  Now that we have verified otherwise, please explain using this as a premise.



Here's a great example of you picking something out but ignoring everything related to it.



Only shows part of the confusion concerning what to do and how to make the decision.  In 1999 it was established that only the president could issue the order. (CNN article)  later in 2004 as reported by the New York Observer, Rumsfeld, by 9/11 had the authority also.  NORAD Commander Larry Arnold stated in 2003 that on 9/11, “I have the authority in case of an emergency to declare a target hostile and shoot it down under an emergency condition.”



this is why its hard for me to believe you have read and processed every word of my posts.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on November 12, 2011, 09:12:59 PM
I'm really trying to figure out what you're saying here, OzmO.

Are you saying that Rumsfeld was waiting for someone from the military to contact him with a specific incident, at which time they would establish the ROE and other details before sending it down the chain, despite the fact that it may have been an immediate threat requiring immediate action?  Is that your argument?

I'm trying to figure out where we are missing one another's points.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on November 12, 2011, 09:26:14 PM
this is why its hard for me to believe you have read and processed every word of my posts.

You're wrong.  Please notice that I went on to clarify that it was a joint power.

I want to learn.  That's why I have been reading.  You have downplayed Rumsfeld's importance several times in the thread, to the point it has become a theme, so that's why I said you were operating with a false premise.

Please, OzmO, using the correct premise that ALL orders go through Rumsfeld, as shown in the DoD directive, explain to me where I'm wrong.  We are missing one another's points, and I want to know why.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on November 12, 2011, 09:32:48 PM
I'm really trying to figure out what you're saying here, OzmO.

Are you saying that Rumsfeld was waiting for someone from the military to contact him with a specific incident, at which time they would establish the ROE and other details before sending it down the chain, despite the fact that it may have been an immediate threat requiring immediate action?  Is that your argument?

I'm trying to figure out where we are missing one another's points.

No prob.  This is problem with writing versus face to face talking.  And its not a simple answer.  I will try quickly to summarize my point.  (but i won't include every bit, it will take too long, i will add them based on your response)

1.  9:03  Second plane hits pentagon.  Rumsfeld acknowledges its an attack not an accident.  The military is already mobilizing.  No other planes are confirmed hijacked at that time until:
2.  9:30  Naval intel unit at the pentagon gets word of a Hijacked plane heading toward Washington.
3.  At 9:30 3 f-16's are scrambled and set in holding pattern because they don't know the target of the newly identified hijacked plane.
4.  9:37 they are vectored to pentagon area (bout 129 miles) and arrive too late.
5.  Obviously shaken by what just happened Rumsfeld goes to crash site.  At about 10am he's on the phone with BUSH discussing ROE's.  


Issuing an order at 9:03 could have been tragic and would have been irresponsible.  No identified hijacked plane, no target for hijacked plane, no ROE's, protocols or procedures in place.   that's why it doesn't matter what Rumsfeld was doing between 9:03 and 9:37 in relation to your charge. That's why all this changed after 9/11 because its too slow of a process to get a shoot down order from a high level politician or president and that's why its on a front line, on duty 2-star now to make the call.

 


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on November 12, 2011, 10:12:24 PM
You're wrong.  Please notice that I went on to clarify that it was a joint power.

I want to learn.  That's why I have been reading.  You have downplayed Rumsfeld's importance several times in the thread, to the point it has become a theme, so that's why I said you were operating with a false premise.

Please, OzmO, using the correct premise that ALL orders go through Rumsfeld, as shown in the DoD directive, explain to me where I'm wrong.  We are missing one another's points, and I want to know why.


i am probably misunderstanding you here but:

Are you saying when a Major orders a Captain to form up his Company in front of the barracks that has to be cleared by Rumsfeld?





Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: andreisdaman on November 13, 2011, 03:46:21 AM
What I would like to see is some one come up with a detailed theory of what they think really happened on 911 as it was an inside job.  From planning to execution to people and personal involved and from that begin to prove that theory using evidence. 

Any takers?

very nice thread topic but the fact is that people who believe that 911 was an inside job WILL NEVER BELIEVE ANY TYPE OF EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY......you either believe or you don't believe...my son thinks that the planes were holograms and that the gov't set off explosives and coordinated the explosives with the holograms supposedly smashing into the buildings....HOO BOY!!!!


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on November 13, 2011, 07:23:06 PM
No prob.  This is problem with writing versus face to face talking.  And its not a simple answer.  I will try quickly to summarize my point.  (but i won't include every bit, it will take too long, i will add them based on your response)

1.  9:03  Second plane hits pentagon.  Rumsfeld acknowledges its an attack not an accident.  The military is already mobilizing.  No other planes are confirmed hijacked at that time until:
2.  9:30  Naval intel unit at the pentagon gets word of a Hijacked plane heading toward Washington.
3.  At 9:30 3 f-16's are scrambled and set in holding pattern because they don't know the target of the newly identified hijacked plane.
4.  9:37 they are vectored to pentagon area (bout 129 miles) and arrive too late.
5.  Obviously shaken by what just happened Rumsfeld goes to crash site.  At about 10am he's on the phone with BUSH discussing ROE's.  


Issuing an order at 9:03 could have been tragic and would have been irresponsible.  No identified hijacked plane, no target for hijacked plane, no ROE's, protocols or procedures in place.   that's why it doesn't matter what Rumsfeld was doing between 9:03 and 9:37 in relation to your charge. That's why all this changed after 9/11 because its too slow of a process to get a shoot down order from a high level politician or president and that's why its on a front line, on duty 2-star now to make the call.


OzmO, how were these things to be clarified?  Remember, all commands go through Rumsfeld (please see my response below).




Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on November 13, 2011, 07:24:24 PM

i am probably misunderstanding you here but:

Are you saying when a Major orders a Captain to form up his Company in front of the barracks that has to be cleared by Rumsfeld?





OzmO, I'm starting to think you are just fucking with my mind here.

No, it doesn't mean that.  The rules have already been established in that situation.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on November 13, 2011, 07:27:54 PM
very nice thread topic but the fact is that people who believe that 911 was an inside job WILL NEVER BELIEVE ANY TYPE OF EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY......you either believe or you don't believe...my son thinks that the planes were holograms and that the gov't set off explosives and coordinated the explosives with the holograms supposedly smashing into the buildings....HOO BOY!!!!

Why don't you help us figure it out?


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: andreisdaman on November 13, 2011, 07:56:34 PM
Why don't you help us figure it out?

Because no one here is going to change their minds so why bother....but I thought Ozmo started an interesting thread though....people who believe the U.S. government conspired to knock down the towers are lunatics


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on November 14, 2011, 10:24:55 AM
Because no one here is going to change their minds so why bother....but I thought Ozmo started an interesting thread though....people who believe the U.S. government conspired to knock down the towers are lunatics

That's why we're taking a different approach on this thread, and carefully examining the individual pieces of the story.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: andreisdaman on November 14, 2011, 10:38:31 AM
That's why we're taking a different approach on this thread, and carefully examining the individual pieces of the story.

fair enough.....but the first person who says the towers were destroyed by an alien race who is conspiring with the U.S. Government to take over the world, then I'm out of here! :)


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on November 14, 2011, 10:57:44 AM
fair enough.....but the first person who says the towers were destroyed by an alien race who is conspiring with the U.S. Government to take over the world, then I'm out of here! :)

 ;D ;D ;D


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on November 14, 2011, 01:24:35 PM
OzmO, how were these things to be clarified?  Remember, all commands go through Rumsfeld (please see my response below).


That's just it.  Go back to some of my original posts regarding our debate/discussion where I talked about how:

-  An attack like this was never prepared for
-  The entire defense posture of the USA at the time was from an attack outside the USA by bombers from another country.

Really, you need to research how the military works.  I am fortunate with this because i have a military background (former military brat) and things like WW2 and modern military tactics have been an interest of mine all my life (46 years)

OzmO, I'm starting to think you are just fucking with my mind here.

No, it doesn't mean that.  The rules have already been established in that situation.

No i am not trying to fuck with you here.  I am only illustrating the inaccuracy of your statement.  

This is how things work:

-  You have on duty, front line commanders in units or command posts such as NEADS (North Eastern Air Defense Sector)  They are actively engaged in the defense of the country.  They operate based on established ROE's, protocols and procedures.  Frontline commanders are charged with decision making (orders etc.) with in the realm of their established ROE's, protocols and procedures. At the time of the attack there were NO established ROE's, protocols and procedures regarding shooting down a hijacked passenger plane.  I have been saying this over and over. So i don't know why you said this:
Quote
The rules have already been established in that situation.
 its 100% not true if you are talking about shooting down hijacked passenger planes.  

-  Then you have administrators, policy makers etc.  People like Rumsfeld.  Rumsfeld dictates things like what kind of military are we gonna have such as a smaller better trained more mobile force or a larger less equipment and trained force.  for example, he's primarily the person who decided to go into Iraq with the small force we did.  They also develop ROE's, protocols and procedures.  But its done not in the heat of battle although because of the absence of these ROE's, protocols and procedures regarding shooting down a hijacked passenger jet, BUSH and Rumsfeld were on the phone at 10am trying to figure that out, because without it, a tragic mistake can happen.  


PS:  just to further clarify, I am not arguing that Rumsfeld didn't have the authority.  Never have been.

 



Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on November 14, 2011, 01:28:36 PM
fair enough.....but the first person who says the towers were destroyed by an alien race who is conspiring with the U.S. Government to take over the world, then I'm out of here! :)

The towers were destroyed by an alien race conspiring with the US government to take over the world.
















































 ;) ;D


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on November 14, 2011, 07:55:25 PM
They also develop ROE's, protocols and procedures.  But its done not in the heat of battle although because of the absence of these ROE's, protocols and procedures regarding shooting down a hijacked passenger jet, BUSH and Rumsfeld were on the phone at 10am trying to figure that out, because without it, a tragic mistake can happen.

ok.  here is where we're misfiring.

you are mistaken.  the ONLY conceivable set of rules in this situation was one that required donald rumsfeld to issue it.  no one could have passed this order other than rumsfeld, and he and bush were to be in agreement for it to be legal.

as i have been saying (over and over), this was a time that should have DEMANDED conversation between bush and rumsfeld, more than every other moment in the administration combined, times one hundred trillion. 

yet they didn't connect until somewhere around 10...so, according to the official story, this would have been about the time the passengers were retaking the last plane.  interesting timing, but much too late.  and without explanation.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on November 14, 2011, 09:04:06 PM
i don't want you to think i'm missing your point, so let me say it another way: this situation required rules to be established immediately. only one set of rules could be given to stop another potential hit. only two people could discuss the set of rules and only one person could directly give the set of rules to the military.

none of the above parties communicated throughout the entire time of the attack.

do you disagree with anything here?



Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on November 15, 2011, 05:59:20 PM
ok.  here is where we're misfiring.

you are mistaken.  the ONLY conceivable set of rules in this situation was one that required donald rumsfeld to issue it.  no one could have passed this order other than rumsfeld, and he and bush were to be in agreement for it to be legal.

as i have been saying (over and over), this was a time that should have DEMANDED conversation between bush and rumsfeld, more than every other moment in the administration combined, times one hundred trillion.  

yet they didn't connect until somewhere around 10...so, according to the official story, this would have been about the time the passengers were retaking the last plane.  interesting timing, but much too late.  and without explanation.

Not true.  It wasn't a set of rules.  There was no set of "rules" in place to make that happen.  Rumsfeld could legally order the shoot down of a hijacked civilian jet.  Nothing more.  No ROE's, plans or protocols were in place.

I agree, they should have talked sooner, (Bush and Rumsfeld).  But that's hindsight.  At 9:03 the realization of a terrorist attack is indisputable.  But there wasn't verification of another plane being hijacked until 27 minutes later or less, (the news made it to a naval unit with in the pentagon at 9:30) Then 7 minutes after that it hit.  After that, as only can be expected Rumsfeld goes down to the crash sight.  Then at 10 Him and Bush are talking.  Not interesting timing, not a smoking gun of a CT.  What it was was a exposed failure in planning for a response to an attack of this type.  

I don't disagree that Rumsfeld and BUSH didn't talk, as far was we know, between 8:46 and 10am.  

However i do strongly disagree that this is evidence of Rumsfled deliberately thwarting the shooting down of a plane for many many other reasons including what i just said here.   If there was a 2 hour period between the WTC 2 and the pentagon we would have removed BUSH, Rumsfeld and bunch of other people soon afterwards and held them for failing their duties.  But that's the case here.

What is does show is that we were caught with our pants down and unable to respond correctly to prevent some of this attack because the people who needed to make the decisions at the time were not active front line commanders, the short time period between the attacks, lack of available weapons/fighters, confusion, communication break downs etc.  All of which are legitimate criticisms, nothing more.  This was changed after 9/11.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on November 15, 2011, 08:12:43 PM
Not true.  It wasn't a set of rules.  There was no set of "rules" in place to make that happen.  Rumsfeld could legally order the shoot down of a hijacked civilian jet.  Nothing more.  No ROE's, plans or protocols were in place.

I agree, they should have talked sooner, (Bush and Rumsfeld).  But that's hindsight.  At 9:03 the realization of a terrorist attack is indisputable.  But there wasn't verification of another plane being hijacked until 27 minutes later or less, (the news made it to a naval unit with in the pentagon at 9:30) Then 7 minutes after that it hit.  After that, as only can be expected Rumsfeld goes down to the crash sight.  Then at 10 Him and Bush are talking.  Not interesting timing, not a smoking gun of a CT.  What it was was a exposed failure in planning for a response to an attack of this type.  

I don't disagree that Rumsfeld and BUSH didn't talk, as far was we know, between 8:46 and 10am.  

However i do strongly disagree that this is evidence of Rumsfled deliberately thwarting the shooting down of a plane for many many other reasons including what i just said here.   If there was a 2 hour period between the WTC 2 and the pentagon we would have removed BUSH, Rumsfeld and bunch of other people soon afterwards and held them for failing their duties.  But that's the case here.

What is does show is that we were caught with our pants down and unable to respond correctly to prevent some of this attack because the people who needed to make the decisions at the time were not active front line commanders, the short time period between the attacks, lack of available weapons/fighters, confusion, communication break downs etc.  All of which are legitimate criticisms, nothing more.  This was changed after 9/11.

Are you saying that Donald Rumsfeld, with Bush's agreement, could not issue an order that stated the Rules of Engagement were to warn any unresponsive plane and then destroy if necessary?


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on November 15, 2011, 09:53:16 PM
After that, as only can be expected Rumsfeld goes down to the crash sight.

By the way, I do hope you're kidding here.  Beyond being what would appear to be a dangerous decision, it also delayed communication further than it already had been.  Think about it.  Why would he even consider making such a choice when the need for communication was this urgent.

It should be mentioned that when Rumsfeld left his office, the NMCC had been trying to contact him.  He left without informing his staff or bringing a communication device.  This caused another half hour delay.

Tell me he wasn't continuing to buy himself time where he wouldn't have to be in a position to communicate about the attack.  Give me another legitimate reason for his behavior throughout the entire time in question, including his earlier decision to continue his routine schedule when an emergency meeting had been prepared for him.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on November 16, 2011, 09:12:23 AM
Are you saying that Donald Rumsfeld, with Bush's agreement, could not issue an order that stated the Rules of Engagement were to warn any unresponsive plane and then destroy if necessary?

ROE's aren't as simple as that.  Especially when it comes down to shooting a passenger plane. (also in the heat of the moment)

Too many bad things can happen, communication break down, mistaken identity, etc.

On a side note, some of the people i have talked to about this recently (people with lifetime knowledge and experience in military aviation)  believe that even now with an on duty 2-star General in charge of ordering a shoot down of a passenger jet, it still will not happen because you won't find people to take that responsibility on when it happens.  On 9/11 in addition to no clear protocol or procedure the attacks happened too fast.    

By the way, I do hope you're kidding here.  Beyond being what would appear to be a dangerous decision, it also delayed communication further than it already had been.  Think about it.  Why would he even consider making such a choice when the need for communication was this urgent.

It should be mentioned that when Rumsfeld left his office, the NMCC had been trying to contact him.  He left without informing his staff or bringing a communication device.  This caused another half hour delay.

Tell me he wasn't continuing to buy himself time where he wouldn't have to be in a position to communicate about the attack.  Give me another legitimate reason for his behavior throughout the entire time in question, including his earlier decision to continue his routine schedule when an emergency meeting had been prepared for him.

Aside from lots of evidence and explanation to the contrary you have found 1 time where he could have issued the order and used that as the basis for your charge?

Here's why it doesn't hold(nothing new): Rumsfeld is not an on duty front line General actively in the defense of the nation.  He's the "Defense Secretary".  Yes it was determined he had the legal right to order a shot down.  In the 23 minutes between the crash and talking to BUSH he is not thinking about "General-ing the battle" because he's not a Military man.  A plane hit the pentagon, the only natural thing to do is go down and see what happened.  Yes, Military Command was trying to get in contact with him.  Why wouldn't they in any situation?  Are his actions worthy of criticism?  I think so.  But not to the extent of charging him with conspiracy to purposely harm the USA.   Not even a million miles close.

Now, if Rumsfeld was the acting on duty person (he would have to be a General) and was charged with the active defense of our country and delayed a shoot down because he abandoned his post or whatever then you might have a charge here. but that's not the case here.

Additionally, and i am still in the process of researching this, I don't know if Rumsfeld was even in the chain of command for something like this.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on November 16, 2011, 07:57:28 PM
ROE's aren't as simple as that.  Especially when it comes down to shooting a passenger plane. (also in the heat of the moment)

Too many bad things can happen, communication break down, mistaken identity, etc.

Are you saying that Rumsfeld decided it was too complicated, and that's why he chose not to speak with the military or with Bush?  You are only making a great case as to WHY communication was so important at this point.

Hijacked planes were being used as missiles.  Discussing the Rules of Engagement in this case HAD to be the top priority.  Were we to wait until another immediate threat was upon us before clarifying the issue?  Because that doesn't make sense.

On a side note, some of the people i have talked to about this recently (people with lifetime knowledge and experience in military aviation)  believe that even now with an on duty 2-star General in charge of ordering a shoot down of a passenger jet, it still will not happen because you won't find people to take that responsibility on when it happens.  On 9/11 in addition to no clear protocol or procedure the attacks happened too fast.

Would they take responsibility for the deaths of potentially thousands of people who could get killed by a single airplane?  We're talking about a situation where the risk from inaction is so much greater than any risk from action.
 
Aside from lots of evidence and explanation to the contrary you have found 1 time where he could have issued the order and used that as the basis for your charge?

Not sure what you're saying.  He displayed this behavior throughout the entire time of attack.
 
By the way, my charge is that he deliberately avoided ANY situation where ANY communication with ANY PERSON IN THE CHAIN OF COMMAND would take place.  He did this for as long as possible.
 
Here's why it doesn't hold(nothing new): Rumsfeld is not an on duty front line General actively in the defense of the nation.  He's the "Defense Secretary".  Yes it was determined he had the legal right to order a shot down.

Yes. He was the ONLY person who could communicate such an order to the military, and he was the ONLY person who could even discuss the possibility with the president.  In this respect, he was probably the most important person in world on 911.
 
In the 23 minutes between the crash and talking to BUSH he is not thinking about "General-ing the battle" because he's not a Military man.  A plane hit the pentagon, the only natural thing to do is go down and see what happened.  Yes, Military Command was trying to get in contact with him.  Why wouldn't they in any situation?

Of course.  You know this.  I know this.  Don't you think he knew this, too?


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on November 29, 2011, 12:24:56 PM
Are you saying that Rumsfeld decided it was too complicated, and that's why he chose not to speak with the military or with Bush?  You are only making a great case as to WHY communication was so important at this point.

Hijacked planes were being used as missiles.  Discussing the Rules of Engagement in this case HAD to be the top priority.  Were we to wait until another immediate threat was upon us before clarifying the issue?  Because that doesn't make sense.

Would they take responsibility for the deaths of potentially thousands of people who could get killed by a single airplane?  We're talking about a situation where the risk from inaction is so much greater than any risk from action.
 
Not sure what you're saying.  He displayed this behavior throughout the entire time of attack.
 
By the way, my charge is that he deliberately avoided ANY situation where ANY communication with ANY PERSON IN THE CHAIN OF COMMAND would take place.  He did this for as long as possible.
  
Yes. He was the ONLY person who could communicate such an order to the military, and he was the ONLY person who could even discuss the possibility with the president.  In this respect, he was probably the most important person in world on 911.
 
Of course.  You know this.  I know this.  Don't you think he knew this, too?


Too bad we couldn't just discuss this in person.  Sorry been very busy lately.

The bottom line for me is this:

-  Rumsfeld is the DS not a frontline on duty commander.
-  The time period for all this happening is mere minutes.  (8:46, 9:03, 9:37)
-  There weren't established protocols and procedures for an attack like this
-  The procedures in place were for an attack from outside by another country
-  Understanding what needed to be done is easy in retrospect but not near as easy and clear in the moment without planning
-  Rumsfled was not the "only" person and Rumsfeld could have easily not been aware he was one of the people who could make that decision and on top of that would certainly defer it to the POTUS. 

There's much much more.  I have personal contact with people who have worked all their lives in the fields we have been discussing and they see nothing that would indicate Rumsfeld deliberately held off to allow these attacks.  Its not even provable in a debate let alone in a court room. 

What happen in this respect on 9/11 was a failure of our defense, simple as that. 

If this this was spaced out in hours not minutes you'd have something. 
 


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on November 29, 2011, 11:39:34 PM

-  Rumsfled was not the "only" person and Rumsfeld could have easily not been aware he was one of the people who could make that decision and on top of that would certainly defer it to the POTUS. 

OzmO, I'd like to know if you seriously mean this.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on November 30, 2011, 10:27:43 AM
OzmO, I'd like to know if you seriously mean this.

In the heat of the moment, without preparation, procedure, or protocol, it could have easily been something he didn't know in the 20-30 minutes after the realization of a never before tried terrorist attack, i do seriously mean it.  Why?  because he is not a on duty front line military commander who would have to exactly know all his ROE's at all times.  

You keep on asserting your charge in the context of Rumsfeld being the "one who issues the order" and its just not realistic or true.  The DS is not an active commander or participant in an unplanned or prepared for attack in the 30 minutes after 9:03.  That's just not how the military works in the mist/beginning of a battle.  this is where your charge is incorrect and this is why piratically no one (and there are thousands of thousands of these people ATC's, Flight operations managers, former military pilots, FAA employees etc) with any real knowledge of how our defense worked on that day that see as anything more than what i have been saying.  


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on November 30, 2011, 10:09:35 PM
The argument is this:

You keep on asserting your charge in the context of Rumsfeld being the "one who issues the order" and its just not realistic or true.
  

The reality couldn't be more clear:

Quote from: U.S. Department of Defense
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.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on November 30, 2011, 10:25:08 PM
The argument is this:

The reality couldn't be more clear:


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.
 


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on December 01, 2011, 10:24:36 AM
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:

Quote from: U.S. Department of Defense
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.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on December 01, 2011, 10:53:48 AM
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.  


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on December 01, 2011, 05:02:04 PM
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.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on December 01, 2011, 07:39:13 PM
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. 


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on December 01, 2011, 08:19:39 PM

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?


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on December 01, 2011, 10:21:21 PM
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.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on December 01, 2011, 11:05:21 PM
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?


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on December 01, 2011, 11:37:27 PM
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. 


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on December 01, 2011, 11:50:35 PM
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.  



Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on December 02, 2011, 10:43:25 AM
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.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on December 02, 2011, 10:53:27 AM
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.

Quote
It's based entirely on Rumsfeld's actions.

Look at your question again:

Quote
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.

Quote
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.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on December 02, 2011, 10:57:33 AM
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. 


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on December 03, 2011, 09:55:48 AM
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.




Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on December 03, 2011, 02:03:48 PM
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.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on December 13, 2011, 10:37:14 AM
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.
Quote
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

Quote
Please remember this was a matter of life and death.

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

Quote
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.  

Quote
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).
Quote
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.  

Quote
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.  

Quote
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.

Quote
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.)

Quote
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.

 


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on December 13, 2011, 10:43:54 AM
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.   


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on December 13, 2011, 04:02:48 PM
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?


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on December 13, 2011, 04:49:12 PM
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. 
 
Quote
...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.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on December 13, 2011, 05:36:37 PM
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...?



Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on December 14, 2011, 08:08:06 AM
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. 


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on December 15, 2011, 12:17:55 AM
Who was doing what?

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

Quote
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?


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on December 15, 2011, 08:32:46 AM
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.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on December 15, 2011, 09:38:15 PM
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?


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on December 16, 2011, 07:53:19 AM
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







Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on December 16, 2011, 07:24:26 PM
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?


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on December 16, 2011, 07:37:52 PM
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. 



Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on December 16, 2011, 09:38:27 PM
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?



Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on December 16, 2011, 09:45:48 PM
How can lack of preparation stop a phone call from taking place?



To who from who?  When and what?


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on December 17, 2011, 09:55:22 AM
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.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on December 17, 2011, 10:26:42 AM
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)?


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on December 17, 2011, 08:42:50 PM

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:

Quote
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.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on December 18, 2011, 09:13:52 AM
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.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on December 18, 2011, 09:52:20 PM
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.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on December 19, 2011, 08:28:33 AM
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?


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on December 19, 2011, 10:29:57 AM
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.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on December 19, 2011, 10:42:35 AM
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.  


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on December 19, 2011, 11:54:57 AM
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. 

Quote
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.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on December 19, 2011, 12:16:05 PM
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.
Quote
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


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on December 19, 2011, 01:30:14 PM
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.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on December 19, 2011, 01:43:51 PM
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.  

Quote
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?


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on December 19, 2011, 01:54:51 PM
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. 


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on December 19, 2011, 02:05:22 PM
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?
  


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on December 19, 2011, 02:14:40 PM
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

Quote
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?


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on December 19, 2011, 02:40:37 PM
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.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on December 19, 2011, 02:58:58 PM
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.  


Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.  


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on December 19, 2011, 06:32:03 PM
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.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on December 19, 2011, 11:17:57 PM
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.  



Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on December 19, 2011, 11:31:59 PM
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.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on December 20, 2011, 11:53:35 PM

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?


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on December 21, 2011, 10:00:43 AM
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.  


Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.    




Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on December 21, 2011, 02:05:18 PM
Yeah, but because of that there is nothing to implicate him.

Please go into detail on this, knowing that he couldn't have foreseen the time of discovery regarding a hijacked plane.

 You can't charge his inaction as a reason why the plane hit.

While it's possible his inaction may be argued as something independent of anything other than his state of mind, it is his state of mind that is the best indicator of his intent.

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.  

It is.  And the only potential remedy for this was under the full control of Donald Rumsfeld.

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.

Exactly the obstacle that needed to be corrected, and exactly the item that was solely under Rumsfeld's control.


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?

He is guilty of willfully producing a continued state of defenselessness against the very thing that was attacking us.

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

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.

This displays an urgency that could only be met with immediate action by the person who was empowered to correct it.  Would you disagree?

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.    


It is based completely on Rumsfeld's actions, which are not hypothetical.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on December 21, 2011, 02:29:31 PM
Please go into detail on this, knowing that he couldn't have foreseen the time of discovery regarding a hijacked plane.

I don't need to.  It's been well documented.  And i have explained is very strong detailed through out this thread starting with the first post that got us started here.  


Quote
While it's possible his inaction may be argued as something independent of anything other than his state of mind, it is his state of mind that is the best indicator of his intent.

So now, its what you think his state of mind that's incriminating him in your eyes?
Quote
It is.  And the only potential remedy for this was under the full control of Donald Rumsfeld.

Again, even if he took full control ,which out of his position as he not a commander in the field, something he wouldn't do, isn't expected to, etc, it wouldn't have changed anything.

Quote
Exactly the obstacle that needed to be corrected, and exactly the item that was solely under Rumsfeld's control.

and again correcting it wouldn't have changed anything and he wouldn't have even tried to correct it in the minutes after 9:03

Quote
He is guilty of willfully producing a continued state of defenselessness against the very thing that was attacking us.

that's pretty weak dude.  Seriously.  sorry to beat this drum so much but that's about the weakest contention for a charge i have ever seen.  First off, we weren't in a state of defenselessness.  Second he didn't order the stand down of military operations at any time before or after 9:03, and if he did, no one would have followed that order.

Quote
This displays an urgency that could only be met with immediate action by the person who was empowered to correct it.  Would you disagree?

Yes absolutely!  Because weather or not its corrected, which it wouldn't be in that short of a time regardless, and i guess you'd have to be knowledgeable about the military and how it operates to understand this, it would have happened any way.

Quote
It is based completely on Rumsfeld's actions, which are not hypothetical.

That's the circular reasoning again.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on December 21, 2011, 09:18:26 PM
I don't need to.  It's been well documented.  And i have explained is very strong detailed through out this thread starting with the first post that got us started here.

You have stated that "it wouldn't have made a difference" had Rumsfeld applied rules upon the second plane hit, as though he had presumed to know this and therefore behaved as he did.

So now, its what you think his state of mind that's incriminating him in your eyes?

His inaction is what's incriminating.  If you could detail a state of mind that could explain the behavior, please do it.

Otherwise, please acknowledge that you cannot do it.

Again, even if he took full control ,which out of his position as he not a commander in the field, something he wouldn't do, isn't expected to, etc, it wouldn't have changed anything.

His role in this case would have been to simply declare the rules.  That is what would be expected of him.

and again correcting it wouldn't have changed anything and he wouldn't have even tried to correct it in the minutes after 9:03

I don't know what you mean by this.

that's pretty weak dude.  Seriously.  sorry to beat this drum so much but that's about the weakest contention for a charge i have ever seen.  First off, we weren't in a state of defenselessness.

We were in a defenseless state against hijacked airliners being used as missiles--the very things that were attacking us.  Yes.  

Second he didn't order the stand down of military operations at any time before or after 9:03,

Needless to say, that would have caused outright exposure.

and if he did, no one would have followed that order.

And perhaps this.

Yes absolutely!  Because weather or not its corrected, which it wouldn't be in that short of a time regardless, and i guess you'd have to be knowledgeable about the military and how it operates to understand this, it would have happened any way.

Please see the first item.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on December 22, 2011, 09:57:08 AM
You have stated that "it wouldn't have made a difference" had Rumsfeld applied rules upon the second plane hit, as though he had presumed to know this and therefore behaved as he did. His inaction is what's incriminating.  If you could detail a state of mind that could explain the behavior, please do it.
Otherwise, please acknowledge that you cannot do it.
(#1)No.  Because at the time there were no other threats.  But, the military was still active and not standing down, meaning they were in the act of defending our country, planes were being scrambled, planes were being armed and put on the hot pads, units were going on alert, etc.  

(#2)What made us defenseless was that we couldn't react quick enough because of a lack of preparation for an attack like this(Primary radar, protocols, available armed jets etc.).  Not that we were in some suspended state of inaction as some of your posts on this seem to suggest.  

(#3)The basic system was still in place as i showed earlier (plane to NEADS to Arnold etc.) and if a plane had been identified and intercepted the call would have been made.  It wouldn't of mattered where Rumsfeld was.  They would have contacted him if they couldn't reach the president.  Ultimately it would have went to the president not the DS or NORAD commander and they would have not made the decision  to shoot a passenger plane down on their own.   Simple as that.

This is why Rumsfeld state of mind is very moot.  Because regardless of his state of mind nothing changes.  I am not trying to avoid speculating Rumsfeld "state of mind".  I just think it meaningless to the issue here because of (refer to #1-#3.)

Quote
His role in this case would have been to simply declare the rules.  That is what would be expected of him.
No, not at all.  During a scheduled meeting yes, not in the minutes after an attack.  You should do some research about the DS's role on military operations.  A fundamental flaw you're  making in much of this discussion is what you place on the DS role in a situation like this.   There's what's on paper and what's actually practiced.  Remember earlier in our conversation i keep saying he's more of an administrator.  In other words he is involved in doctrine and logistics not a commander in the field.    

Quote
I don't know what you mean by this.
 Because "correcting" it involves more than just coming up with a set of ROE's.  Correcting it involves communication, chain of command, and command authority tweaks.  Along with restructuring and installing more primary radars through the country.  That's not something he's thinking about at 9:03 because of (refer to #3).  He knows when they get a hijacked plane identified and intercepted the decision can be made then.

Quote
We were in a defenseless state against hijacked airliners being used as missiles--the very things that were attacking us.  Yes.

(refer to #2)

Quote
Needless to say, that would have caused outright exposure.
 It wouldn't have worked any way.  He doesn't have the authority to order the military to stand down, no one would have listen to him.  The military answers to the POTUS.





Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on December 22, 2011, 11:24:50 PM
Here is where we're divided:

He knows when they get a hijacked plane identified and intercepted the decision can be made then.

Beside the fact that it would destroy any chance of stopping a disaster that had progressed past a certain point, it would also be an impossible method of command if multiple threats accumulated simultaneously.

Specifically what was stopping him from exercising his authority to modify a procedure that was intended only to stop long-range threats coming from outside the country?

I want a something specific.  It's not a question of legalities...so, what is it?


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on December 23, 2011, 08:08:29 AM
Here is where we're divided:

Beside the fact that it would destroy any chance of stopping a disaster that had progressed past a certain point, it would also be an impossible method of command if multiple threats accumulated simultaneously.

Specifically what was stopping him from exercising his authority to modify a procedure that was intended only to stop long-range threats coming from outside the country?

I want a something specific.  It's not a question of legalities...so, what is it?

It wouldn't be impossible at all.  You can talk to and coordinate more than one plane at a time.  Also, Air Force one is set up to do just that. 

I Detailed specifically why modifying a procedure on the fly in The minutes after the attack is irresponsible and not possible many many times in our conversation.  


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on December 23, 2011, 09:00:42 PM
It wouldn't be impossible at all.  You can talk to and coordinate more than one plane at a time.  Also, Air Force one is set up to do just that.

Without further slowing down a method that's twice proved to be fatally slow?  How?

And as to the question of diminished ability?:

Quote
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?
 

I Detailed specifically why modifying a procedure on the fly in The minutes after the attack is irresponsible and not possible many many times in our conversation.  

Beyond his own unwillingness, what was the exact mechanism that would have prevented it?


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on December 25, 2011, 09:52:04 AM
Beyond his own unwillingness, what was the exact mechanism that would have prevented it?

Maybe I can help. There wasn't anything preventing it.

We had already been hit--twice--because it was impossible to react in time.  The method of defense was inappropriate for the method of attack, and our citizens were dying as a result.

Yes, we were defenseless.

During this time, the National Command Authority--the ultimate source of all legal military commands, the President and the Defense Secretary--did not attempt to resolve the issue, and did not attempt to open dialogue.

It may surprise you to learn that the engagement order was finally given, illegally and belatedly, by Dick Cheney--a person who was NOT in the chain of command.  The military later said it didn't follow his order due to that.

Why would Cheney give an order that he knew was illegal, before trying to contact Rumsfeld, who was legally able to direct the military?

It appears we are now examining another attempt to withhold a legitimate remedy in due time, and again it was centered on a deliberate avoidance of communication.

Please give me your thoughts.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on December 27, 2011, 02:46:44 PM
Maybe I can help. There wasn't anything preventing it.

We had already been hit--twice--because it was impossible to react in time.  The method of defense was inappropriate for the method of attack, and our citizens were dying as a result.

Yes, we were defenseless.

During this time, the National Command Authority--the ultimate source of all legal military commands, the President and the Defense Secretary--did not attempt to resolve the issue, and did not attempt to open dialogue.

It may surprise you to learn that the engagement order was finally given, illegally and belatedly, by Dick Cheney--a person who was NOT in the chain of command.  The military later said it didn't follow his order due to that.

Why would Cheney give an order that he knew was illegal, before trying to contact Rumsfeld, who was legally able to direct the military?

It appears we are now examining another attempt to withhold a legitimate remedy in due time, and again it was centered on a deliberate avoidance of communication.

Please give me your thoughts.

No, I don't see it.  Mainly because no opportunity to deny a shoot down order was ever given because of circumstance.  No direct opportunity to give an order ever presented itself.  Had there been one, then your charge might be legit.  You keep forgetting it was also impossible to react in time to flight 77 also.   You can't charge someone for something they didn't do when the opportunity to do it never presented itself. 

Additionally, your "remedy" is a recipe for disaster and no person in those positions in their right minds would try and give shoot down authority of a civilian passenger jet to who ever in the fly.  For it happen the president would give the order, not the DS or NORAD.  (And as much as i despise BUSH i don't fault him anywhere here, the person to blame for our state of "defenselessness as you call it, is Rumsfeld's dismantling of primary radars or who ever initiated it.)   

So what you have here is:

Our inability to react and defend in time from this type of attack as it happened, not necessarily in every instance of an attack like this. 

What you don't have is:

Any evidence BUSH, Rumsfled or anyone else deliberately thwarted our defenses to allow this attack to happen.
 
________________________ _

What Cheney did means little, as he's a blow hard any way.  He might have figured he needed to do something in tumult.   


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on December 28, 2011, 07:20:03 PM
...your "remedy" is a recipe for disaster and no person in those positions in their right minds would try and give shoot down authority of a civilian passenger jet to who ever in the fly.

Specifically, we are talking about an engagement order.  Establishing rules to use in the event of an encounter with a potential threat of this type.

With this in mind, please tell me how shortening the chain of command would be a recipe for disaster.

No, I don't see it.  Mainly because no opportunity to deny a shoot down order was ever given because of circumstance.  No direct opportunity to give an order ever presented itself.  Had there been one, then your charge might be legit.  You keep forgetting it was also impossible to react in time to flight 77 also.   You can't charge someone for something they didn't do when the opportunity to do it never presented itself.

It appears the goal was to increase the chance of an uninterrupted attack while lessening the risk for outright exposure, with a bias toward lessening the risk for outright exposure, as such exposure would place the blame on our own leaders.  

Obviously, denying a shootdown order wouldn't help to achieve the goal.

So..using the rules that were intended only for a long range threat, the idea is to perpetuate a condition whereby an attacking plane is able to succeed within a lagged reaction time.  Although a situation may arise that could lead to a request for engagement rules on a particular plane, the chances remain greatly increased that such a plane will hit a target before it happens.

That is how such a goal is to be accomplished.

(And as much as i despise BUSH i don't fault him anywhere here, the person to blame for our state of "defenselessness as you call it, is Rumsfeld's dismantling of primary radars or who ever initiated it.)

So what you have here is:

Our inability to react and defend in time from this type of attack as it happened, not necessarily in every instance of an attack like this.  

What you don't have is:

Any evidence BUSH, Rumsfled or anyone else deliberately thwarted our defenses to allow this attack to happen.
 
________________________ _

What Cheney did means little, as he's a blow hard any way.  He might have figured he needed to do something in tumult.

It is very meaningful.  Because at this point, we have at least two executives whose actions are consistent with that of persons interested in achieving the suspected goal.

Most importantly, their actions are consistent with this in an otherwise unexplainable way.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on December 29, 2011, 10:56:45 AM
Specifically, we are talking about an engagement order.  Establishing rules to use in the event of an encounter with a potential threat of this type.

With this in mind, please tell me how shortening the chain of command would be a recipe for disaster.

That’s why I asked you to give me what Rumsfeld would have said:  Who does he call, when does he say it and what does he say.  "Shoot down the next plane you think is hijacked?"  That's a recipe for disaster.  What if they have the wrong plane in their sights? (can easily happen with hundreds flying around that day, insufficient primary radar, no AWACS, etc.)  What if the plane is being retaken by the passengers but there isn't any communication because the radio was broken?  What if it was a transponder malfunctioned?

There are other issues to:

What if it was only that attack? (WTC's)  then issuing a shoot down order could result in a mistake.

Rumsfeld is not a field commander, he's an administrator/CEO  The POTUS is the one to give that order not the DS even though he has the authority to do so, in this situation, the POTUS is the one.  

Quote
It appears the goal was to increase the chance of an uninterrupted attack while lessening the risk for outright exposure, with a bias toward lessening the risk for outright exposure, as such exposure would place the blame on our own leaders.  
You are starting with the assumption that there was a goal of this sort with zero bases in fact.  In other words, you are working from a false premise or unproven premise.  That makes it a logical fallacy.  "It appears the goal.." is your false premise.  
Quote
Obviously, denying a shootdown order wouldn't help to achieve the goal.
The opportunity never presented its self.  Which is one of the basis for the reason why you charge falls flat.


Quote
So..using the rules that were intended only for a long range threat, the idea is to perpetuate a condition whereby an attacking plane is able to succeed within a lagged reaction time.  Although a situation may arise that could lead to a request for engagement rules on a particular plane, the chances remain greatly increased that such a plane will hit a target before it happens.

That is how such a goal is to be accomplished.
Kind of doing the same thing here also, in that you are using a unproven premise as the basis for your charge then adding legit facts to it.  
 
Quote
It is very meaningful.  Because at this point, we have at least two executives whose actions are consistent with that of persons interested in achieving the suspected goal.

Most importantly, their actions are consistent with this in an otherwise unexplainable way.

Not really because an order of this type would have come from the president.  No one else would be willing to actually make the decision.  


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on December 30, 2011, 02:55:16 PM
That’s why I asked you to give me what Rumsfeld would have said:  Who does he call,

He could call a random drinking buddy, but since the Department of Defense dictates that he and the President are to be the lawful source of all military commands, it may make more sense call the President.  Let's start there.

Following your reasoning in this thread, why wouldn't he maintain an open line of communication with the President to field any potential requests for engagement rules?  To attempt contact after the fact would cost time, and would increase the chance of a successful attack.

when does he say it and what does he say.  "Shoot down the next plane you think is hijacked?"  That's a recipe for disaster.

The scope of possible rules in this case was very limited.  A plane that had failed visual recognition, was bearing onto a population center and had refused to break course, would be a threat and would be destroyed.  

The time to establish rules for engagement with such a threat is not after it has been discovered at a critical phase in such a movement.

What if they have the wrong plane in their sights? (can easily happen with hundreds flying around that day, insufficient primary radar, no AWACS, etc.)

After visual placement, with a skilled fighter pilot that has been trained to his core, the chances are below consideration when pitted against the other possibilities.

By the way, if this is an attempt to explain Donald Rumsfeld's actions, it would suggest that he--and only he, as there wasn't communication with anyone else--had presumed, unilaterally, to know better of the proper cognitive handling of such a scenario than the people who are actually trained to do so, including the military pilot on the scene.

What if the plane is being retaken by the passengers but there isn't any communication because the radio was broken?

And the plane was to wildly careen into a city, rather than being purposely driven there?

What if it was a transponder malfunctioned?

It would still pass visual recognition.

There are other issues to:

What if it was only that attack? (WTC's)  then issuing a shoot down order could result in a mistake.

What if there were to be a dozen more attacks?

Rumsfeld is not a field commander, he's an administrator/CEO  The POTUS is the one to give that order not the DS even though he has the authority to do so, in this situation, the POTUS is the one.

It was a joint power, requiring both.

You are starting with the assumption that there was a goal of this sort with zero bases in fact.  In other words, you are working from a false premise or unproven premise.  That makes it a logical fallacy.  "It appears the goal.." is your false premise.

It is the only premise that would set the stage for the actions that took place.  These otherwise strange behaviors were necessary to increase the chance of a successful attack while minimizing the risk for full exposure.

Because the behaviors were necessary for the goal, they took place.  Because they took place, we can now examine them.

The opportunity never presented its self.  Which is one of the basis for the reason why you charge falls flat.

Not sure what you're saying.  If a shootdown request had been received, chances are very high it would have been granted.  The necessary slant was toward minimizing risk for outright exposure, as the "war on terror" would have become a war on corrupt officials.

Kind of doing the same thing here also, in that you are using a unproven premise as the basis for your charge then adding legit facts to it.  
 
Not really because an order of this type would have come from the president.  No one else would be willing to actually make the decision.

The order would have had to come from the National Command Authority.  An order from any other source would increase the chance of a successful attack.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on December 30, 2011, 03:33:43 PM
He could call a random drinking buddy, but since the Department of Defense dictates that he and the President are to be the lawful source of all military commands, it may make more sense call the President.  Let's start there.

And where was the president at this time?  Reading stories to children when he learns of the attack at 9:06.  He finishes the stories at about 9:16 and doesn't leave the school until 9:29.  So that's out.
Quote
Following your reasoning in this thread, why wouldn't he maintain an open line of communication with the President to field any potential requests for engagement rules?  To attempt contact after the fact would cost time, and would increase the chance of a successful attack.

Mainly because he's not a field commander.  He's an administrator/CEO role in the military.  Something I have said over and over that you seem to ignore.  But its the reality.  Much of your charge is hindsight based, and puts too much on Rumsfeld role in this.  

Quote
The scope of possible rules in this case was very limited.  A plane that had failed visual recognition, was bearing onto a population center and had refused to break course, would be a threat and would be destroyed.
 

What if the passengers has retaken the plane while flying at a low altitude?

What if destroying the plane would result in the plane crashing into a populated area?

What if the plane is flying in a cloud patch?

Quote
The time to establish rules for engagement with such a threat is not after it has been discovered at a critical phase in such a movement.
 No, the point is you don't establish ROE on the fly and then pass them down in the heat of battle for the decision to be made by a General.  Its takes time to consider all possibilities and scenarios.  The order must be made by the president in real time.  

Quote
After visual placement, with a skilled fighter pilot that has been trained to his core, the chances are below consideration when pitted against the other possibilities.

Not at all.  "Skilled" is not the issue here.  The issue here, is Rumsfeld not being the one to make a decision of this sort on his own accord and being responsible enough to not try and work out ROE's to pass down to a fighter pilot in the heat fo the moment in the 30 minutes after the second attack.  The idea if laughable and shear ignorance (no offense) on your part regarding how the military works.  

Quote
By the way, if this is an attempt to explain Donald Rumsfeld's actions, it would suggest that he--and only he, as there wasn't communication with anyone else--had presumed, unilaterally, to know better of the proper cognitive handling of such a scenario than the people who are actually trained to do so, including the military pilot on the scene.
 A flaw in your reasoning foreshadowing more to come later in this thread.  

Quote
And the plane was to wildly careen into a city, rather than being purposely driven there?

It would still pass visual recognition.

refer above.  

Quote
What if there were to be a dozen more attacks?

Then it wouldn't have mattered as it already didn't matter any way.  Only 2 alert bases were in proximity to respond with few armed jets available.  Again, as you constantly analyzed this in heindsight, nothing like this was prepared or planned for.  

Quote
It was a joint power, requiring both.

I don't think so.
Quote
It is the only premise that would set the stage for the actions that took place.  These otherwise strange behaviors were necessary to increase the chance of a successful attack while minimizing the risk for full exposure.

Because the behaviors were necessary for the goal, they took place.  Because they took place, we can now examine them.

Is it Jack?  Com on, be objective for just a moment.  The "Only" premise?  Your consistent use of logical fallacies as the basis for your charge is why most arguments on this matter aren't taken seriously.  

Quote
Not sure what you're saying.  If a shootdown request had been received, chances are very high it would have been granted.  The necessary slant was toward minimizing risk for outright exposure, as the "war on terror" would have become a war on corrupt officials.

Probably not.  There would have been a delay, BUSH would have likely hesitated and chances are the pilot wouldn't have followed through on the order.  Additionally,  people die either way as a result, but to pull the trigger and order the shoot down isn't taken easily as you seems to think it would have been.  But of course, in hindsight things are easy to decide aren't they?

Quote
The order would have had to come from the National Command Authority.  An order from any other source would increase the chance of a successful attack.

Nah, only the president and the Commander in Chief would give the order. He'd pass it down to NORAD who in turn would order Gen. Arnold to order NEADS who would order the plane.  Or, a radio link would be set up directly with the fighter and Air Force One, but that would take too long.  that's why much changed after 9/11 and now a 2-Star can make the order.

All of which...............  is completely meaningless to this discussion because, Bush was in a class room, no further threats were identified and the military was still active and responding. And the bottom line is your charge is based on something that didn't happen in that the opportunity for a shoot down order never presented itself because there weren't any identified threats in the 30 minutes after the 9:03 attack.

You can't charge somebody for a crime for something they didn't do when doing it wouldn't have made any difference the end result other than potentially causing a horrific accident due to an incompetent order.  

And you can't use a logical fallacy (make a charge based on an unproven or assumed baseless premise) to prove wrong doing.  

PS:  i think we got to the "what" to say, but you never did the "who" and "when."

PPSS:  Every time i talk to some of the people i personally (not on the internet) know about this, who have had a life time of expertise and experience is this particular thing we are talking about, "Air defense, ATC, Flight operations etc." They often laugh and state the military doesn't operate like a video game or movie, they just aren't that fast to react to anything, especially things unplanned for.  And they are not like minded skeptics for sure.  One of them, i have had long debates with on the JFK assassination who in spite of on any solid evidence still believes JFK was a conspiracy and Oswald wasnt a lone shooter.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on December 30, 2011, 05:26:22 PM
I want to review every point very carefully, so let's look at this more slowly:


And where was the president at this time?  Reading stories to children when he learns of the attack at 9:06.  He finishes the stories at about 9:16 and doesn't leave the school until 9:29.  So that's out.

Since it didn't render him unable to use a communication device, please tell me how this would prevent contact.

Remember, to follow your reasoning in this thread, we are talking specifically about the National Command Authority maintaining a line of communication to field potential requests for engagement rules:

Quote from: United States Department of Defense
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.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on December 30, 2011, 06:01:26 PM
I want to review every point very carefully, so let's look at this more slowly:

Since it didn't render him unable to use a communication device, please tell me how this would prevent contact.

Remember, to follow your reasoning in this thread, we are talking specifically about the National Command Authority maintaining a line of communication to field potential requests for engagement rules:


It's out because the POTUS is not an issue in this other than the fact he would make the decision to shoot down a hijacked civilian plane.

Remember hindsight!  Rumsfeld first thought, reasonably at 9:03 is not OMG we have got to get RoE's worked out and pass it to the fighter pilots ASAP for the many reasons I have said over and over. 

You have a decent line of criticism on how we defended out our country that day, even in Rumsfeld's actions to a degree considering he's not a battlefield commander, what you don't have is a case for foul play. 


Insert everything I have written so far on this thread:  ( I don't feel like typing  that much)  :)


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on December 30, 2011, 10:07:35 PM
It's out because the POTUS is not an issue in this other than the fact he would make the decision to shoot down a hijacked civilian plane.

Remember hindsight!  Rumsfeld first thought, reasonably at 9:03 is not OMG we have got to get RoE's worked out and pass it to the fighter pilots ASAP for the many reasons I have said over and over. 

You have a decent line of criticism on how we defended out our country that day, even in Rumsfeld's actions to a degree considering he's not a battlefield commander, what you don't have is a case for foul play. 


Insert everything I have written so far on this thread:  ( I don't feel like typing  that much)  :)


Let's look at it from Rumsfeld's perspective at 09:03:

**He knew we had been attacked using a method whereby hijacked airliners had been purposely flown into buildings.

**He knew we had been unable to stop them because they had taken off from nearby points.

**He knew more planes were still in the air.

At this point, do you believe he somehow calculated that there wasn't a risk for another attack to be performed in the same way?


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on December 30, 2011, 11:39:20 PM

Let's look at it from Rumsfeld's perspective at 09:03:
**He knew we had been attacked using a method whereby hijacked airliners had been purposely flown into buildings.
**He knew we had been unable to stop them because they had taken off from nearby points.
**He knew more planes were still in the air.

At this point, do you believe he somehow calculated that there wasn't a risk for another attack to be performed in the same way?

I am not trying to figure what he did or didn't believe because we will never know and ANY speculation on what he did or didn't believe will be exactly that: SPECULATION.  You don't incriminate people based on speculation.  You incriminate them on facts.  I focus on what we DO KNOW.

Fact:  HE did not delibarately thwart the defense of the nation due to his inaction.  

Fact:  HE did not deliberately thwart the defense of the nation due to his actions.

Fact:  He was not an active on duty general at the time.

Show me otherwise.  


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on December 31, 2011, 12:06:36 AM
PS I was mistaken about where he was at 9:03.  He was in his office with a CIA breifer and was notified by His assistant to the DS of public affairs, Patricia Clarke, about the second plane hitting. He instructs his chief of staff, Larry De Rita and Patricia to go to the emergency Support center and wait for him, because he wanted to make a few phone calls.  (likely to NORAD who told him there no identified threats ATM). At either 9:10 or 9:25 According to terrorism tsar Richard Clarke who was at the WH (some reports are conflicting) he was on a video conference with other leaders, such as the FBI director. 

So it's not like he was  sticking his head in the sand as the basic CT rhetoric will have your believing he was absent and unreachable for 2 hours.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on December 31, 2011, 12:15:41 AM
Here another little tid bit that makes it silly to think he knew a plane was going to hit the pentagon and didn't worry about it because the pentagon is so big and would have been the perfect alibi:  his office is on the outer ring!  So now he's got a 1/5-10 chance of getting hit.  Com on Jack!



Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on December 31, 2011, 12:42:21 PM
PS I was mistaken about where he was at 9:03.  He was in his office with a CIA breifer and was notified by His assistant to the DS of public affairs, Patricia Clarke, about the second plane hitting.

As I mentioned several times earlier, he was told by an assistant Secretary of Defense, Torie Clarke, who was watching it on TV.

He instructs his chief of staff, Larry De Rita and Patricia to go to the emergency Support center and wait for him, because he wanted to make a few phone calls.  (likely to NORAD who told him there no identified threats ATM).

Again, as I mentioned several times earlier, he told them to "wait" in the meeting room, as he had a routine daily briefing and wanted to "make a few phone calls".  If the phone calls took place, they had no known effect on the events, and most importantly did not include contact with anyone as a member of the National Command Authority.

It should be mentioned that his assistants "waited" for him for more than an hour.

At either 9:10 or 9:25 According to terrorism tsar Richard Clarke who was at the WH (some reports are conflicting) he was on a video conference with other leaders, such as the FBI director.

Yes.  It conflicts with every other account, including what would become Rumsfeld's own testimony.  

Originally, Richard Clarke placed Rumsfeld in a video conference at the exact time Rumsfeld was found to have been recorded at the destruction site.  


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on December 31, 2011, 12:44:38 PM
This is important, OzmO.  Please tell me if you deny that his knowledge included the following:

**He knew we had been attacked using a method whereby hijacked airliners had been purposely flown into buildings.

**He knew we had been unable to stop them because they had taken off from nearby points.

**He knew more planes were still in the air.


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on January 02, 2012, 11:43:58 AM
This is important, OzmO.  Please tell me if you deny that his knowledge included the following:

**He knew we had been attacked using a method whereby hijacked airliners had been purposely flown into buildings.

**He knew we had been unable to stop them because they had taken off from nearby points.

**He knew more planes were still in the air.


I am not trying to figure what he did or didn't believe because we will never know and ANY speculation on what he did or didn't believe will be exactly that: SPECULATION.  You don't incriminate people based on speculation.  You incriminate them on facts.  I focus on what we DO KNOW.

Fact:  HE did not delibarately thwart the defense of the nation due to his inaction.  

Fact:  HE did not deliberately thwart the defense of the nation due to his actions.

Fact:  He was not an active on duty general at the time.

Show me otherwise.  

I am confused what part of this reply don't you understand or don't agree with?

Besides at that moment, 9:03 he didn't know all 3.

He didn't know hijacked planes were flown into buildings because at 9:03 he hadn't been notified any flights were hijacked.  He can assume, but he wouldn't act on it until there was verification.  

He didn't know where those planes came from because even if the news, (which i don't think it was) was reporting at 9:03  which flight it was and were it originated from,  the military would independently verify it first.  It would have taken a few minutes at the very best for the news to figure out which flight it was.

He knew only that 3000-5000 planes were in the air in the USA at the time.  That's all.

So your speculative laced argument falls terribly flat.  And again, this isn't a video game or movie.  And at best, your assumptions here are based on hindsight.

So at 9:03 what DID HE DO?  He did what he should have logically done.  See Jack, you can't live on speculation and "only possible way" arguments that are based solely on speculation.  It's funny thinking about it, because a few pages ago we debated about him not doing anything for 2 hours, not calling anyone etc.

but now, its been revealed that he:

1. In his office about to start a meeting with a CIA breifer.  He didn't see it on TV.
2. In the minutes after 9:03 he was notified by Victoria Clarke about a second plane hitting the WTC's
3. He's informed that a crisis management team is being set up (this is part of the communication lines)
4. He sends  Victoria Clarke and his Chief of staff  down the hall, near his office to the ESC (executive support center also part of communication lines with civilian agencies and military units.)
5. He makes some phones calls likely finding out what's going on.  

In the mean time our military is going on alert, planes are being scrambled, the WH is getting a emergency video conference set up etc, etc, etc.  

Let's focus on facts....not baseless speculation, not uninformed speculation, not arguments based on a unproven premise.....

Please show me where Rumsfeld actions or in-actions caused our defenses to be thwarted that day that would have prevented the pentagon from being hit.    


Title: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on January 02, 2012, 11:50:19 AM
As I mentioned several times earlier, he was told by an assistant Secretary of Defense, Torie Clarke, who was watching it on TV.

Again, as I mentioned several times earlier, he told them to "wait" in the meeting room, as he had a routine daily briefing and wanted to "make a few phone calls".  If the phone calls took place, they had no known effect on the events, and most importantly did not include contact with anyone as a member of the National Command Authority.

It should be mentioned that his assistants "waited" for him for more than an hour.

Yes.  It conflicts with every other account, including what would become Rumsfeld's own testimony.  

Originally, Richard Clarke placed Rumsfeld in a video conference at the exact time Rumsfeld was found to have been recorded at the destruction site.  


So that's what you think they did?  Clarke and the Chief of staff just stood there in the ESC and did nothign but wait?  Com on Jack.

Yeah, it was an hour  give or take before he got  there.  Why?  

1.  He was making calls with a CIA briefer present find what the hell was going on.
2.  At 9:37 he went down to see what the explosion was which turned out to be flight 77.  


Now, Jack i am getting a little tired of answering your questions over and over sometimes 2 or 3 times, yet i am feeling like you aren't answering mine:

That’s why I asked you to give me what Rumsfeld would have said:  Who does he call, when does he say it and what does he say.  

 (this means there would be at least 3 answers)

and

Quote
Fact:  HE did not deliberately thwart the defense of the nation due to his inaction.

Fact:  HE did not deliberately thwart the defense of the nation due to his actions.

Fact:  He was not an active on duty general at the time.

Show me otherwise.  

and of course...

Quote
Let's focus on facts....not baseless speculation, not uninformed speculation, not arguments based on a unproven premise.....

Please show me where Rumsfeld actions or in-actions caused our defenses to be thwarted that day that would have prevented the pentagon from being hit.  


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on January 03, 2012, 04:56:31 PM
The 'who', as I've already said, is the other half of the NCA.  That would be President Bush.

The 'when' should be upon the plane hitting the second tower--at the very latest. 

((By the way, although I haven't said anything about Rumsfeld's actions after the first attack, they couldn't possibly be more consistent with the rest of the story.

The evidence clearly shows that regular consideration was given for attacks involving planes flying into buildings--including the WTC.  With the shock of the first tower being hit, it should have been especially concerning for those in the business. 

To think that it didn't generate any effort toward simple contact between NCA members cannot be found consistent with a protective attitude.

But it's been my pattern to give the benefit of doubt in this thread; and I am willing to do it here, too.  So let's just say 'when' is at the second hit, and he should have been primed to do so from the first hit.))

The 'what' has been the main point we've been debating, and it is a simple question of whether Rumsfeld should have waited to see if a request to establish rules would arrive, or if he should have immediately established rules for the most obvious and imminent threats involving hijacked airliners.

You have stated:

He knows when they get a hijacked plane identified and intercepted the decision can be made then.

When we're talking about a Secretary of Defense who went willingly missing for half an hour.

OzmO, you are basing your conclusions on a "they wouldn't dare" theory.  Such a theory ignores facts, and it ignores the facts as they are viewed as a whole.


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on January 03, 2012, 04:57:05 PM
 It's funny thinking about it, because a few pages ago we debated about him not doing anything for 2 hours, not calling anyone etc.

but now, its been revealed that he...


I was the one to "reveal" Rumsfeld's activities many pages ago, OzmO.

Let me guess: you didn't even read it.


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on January 03, 2012, 05:23:12 PM
The 'who', as I've already said, is the other half of the NCA.  That would be President Bush.

President BUSH was unavailable.  So "who" does he call?
Quote
The 'when' should be upon the plane hitting the second tower--at the very latest.  

So when the he's informed about a second plane hitting he's to immediately assume there are more terrorists hijacking planes an issue shoot down ROE made up on the fly and without verification?  VERY IRRESPONSIBLE. And likely leading to additional catastrophe.  

Quote
The 'what' has been the main point we've been debating, and it is a simple question of whether Rumsfeld should have waited to see if a request to establish rules would arrive, or if he should have immediately established rules for the most obvious and imminent threats involving hijacked airliners.

That's not an answer.  1/3 so far.  What does he say and who does he say it to?

Please answer.
 
Quote
((By the way, although I haven't said anything about Rumsfeld's actions after the first attack, they couldn't possibly be more consistent with the rest of the story.

The evidence clearly shows that regular consideration was given for attacks involving planes flying into buildings--including the WTC.  With the shock of the first tower being hit, it should have been especially concerning for those in the business.  

No it doesn't.  If "regular consideration" was given for attacks involving planes flying into buildings we would have had a Primary Radar system without massive holes through out the country, and establish procedure in how to deal with them prior to 9/11 and more alert planes.  We did not.  Incorrect assumption

Quote
To think that it didn't generate any effort toward simple contact between NCA members cannot be found consistent with a protective attitude.

Who are the NCA members?  Do you know all the things in regards to contacting keys members of government and military in the minutes following the second plane strike?  Video conferencing was being set up, crisis management teams, emergency communication lines etc etc etc all were happening int he minutes after the second plane.  Another incorrect assumption.

Quote
But it's been my pattern to give the benefit of doubt in this thread; and I am willing to do it here, too.  So let's just say 'when' is at the second hit, and he should have been primed to do so from the first hit.))

No, because nearly everyone thought the first hit was just an accident.

Quote
You have stated:

When we're talking about a Secretary of Defense who went willingly missing for half an hour.

Extremely incorrect!  Did you even read my thread?  From 9:03 to 9:37 he was in office.  ALL his staffers in his group knew that.  When the Flight 77 hit, thinking it was a bomb, he informed his staffers where he was going:  To the area of impact.    

Quote
OzmO, you are basing your conclusions on a "they wouldn't dare" theory.  Such a theory ignores facts, and it ignores the facts as they are viewed as a whole.

Not even a little bit.  Using a "They wouldn't Dare theory" is completely ludicrous and is the approach you have been using most of this thread when you say things "If the goal was not to get implicated then...."  That's exactly what you have been doing most of this time.....Using unproven premises and speculation.  And as more facts are bought out all you seem to have is either incorrect assumptions or rhetorical arguments.  

I am basing my conclusions on FACTS as we know them.  Period.  

Fact:  HE did not deliberately thwart the defense of the nation due to his inaction.

Fact:  HE did not deliberately thwart the defense of the nation due to his actions.

Show me otherwise.
  (0/2 here.  I'll let the 3rd one go)

PS:  just so you know.  I hate our government.  So even insinuating i think they wouldn't dare is funny to me.  What i think is:  based on the FACTS as we know them, Rumsfeld did not because of his inaction or actions thwart our defenses causing flight 77 to hit the outer ring of the pentagon where Rumsfeld office is also located in the large complex.  


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on January 03, 2012, 05:34:39 PM
I was the one to "reveal" Rumsfeld's activities many pages ago, OzmO.

Let me guess: you didn't even read it.

Incorrect.  I read every thing you post here.  Now, in fairness, becuase of our conversation i have found it helpful to research much more. 


This sounds very similar to the official story.  It fails to explain why, for nearly two hours of attack, Rumsfeld did not speak with the military and did not speak with Bush, and why this fact should not defy every ounce of logic in any would-be believer.

Incorrect. 



It does seem unlikely.  But it is exactly what happened.  It is not hidden, it is not classified, it is not in any way unknown.  It is also exactly as the 911 Commission has recorded. 



This was in response to me saying this:

"But to think he didn't talk to anyone for a significant length of time during the attacks seems very unlikely."

Facts are he talked to people.   


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on January 03, 2012, 06:21:03 PM
The fact that you would say this:

Who are the NCA members?

After reading this probably twenty times in the thread:

Quote from: United States Department of Defense
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.

...tells me that you are mentally blocking the facts of this case.


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on January 03, 2012, 06:44:24 PM
The fact that you would say this:

After reading this probably twenty times in the thread:

...tells me that you are mentally blocking the facts of this case.

I wasn't asking the question because i don't know, i was asking to question for you to look into it and see what was in action in the minutes after 9:03 from the Pentagon to the White house and else where....in that what WAS being set up and how these things were being done accordingly.  

Other than that I am sure you have answers to the questions i asked and or comments disputing the facts i have brought up?  Or will you just ignore that BUSH was unavailable until just after 9:16, all your incorrect assumptions i listed above, or that a secure video conferencing center was in action with Richard Clarke at the white house with RICE there and NORAD on the line, or that emergency response teams were being set up, the executive support center was in action, or will ignore my serious question asking you to show otherwise these facts:


Fact:  HE did not deliberately thwart the defense of the nation due to his inaction.

Fact:  HE did not deliberately thwart the defense of the nation due to his actions.

Here's what you are doing Jack:

You have made up your mind that Rumsfeld thwarted the 9/11 defense of our nation and you are ONLY paying attention to anything that will support that theory even it if it is irrelevant, such as your NCA argument or having to use a unsupported/unproven premise to make an argument.  

Why is it irrelevant as it pertains to this area of 9/11?

1.  BUSH was unreachable
2.  Only a few minutes (34) had passed since 9:03
3.  The military or government did not stand down at any time during the events of 9/11
4.  Rumsfeld was 100% accessible until 9:37

Like i keep saying, if all you have is:  Rumsfeld should have set up ROE's on the fly immediately after 9:03 even though it wouldn't have made a difference to the outcome, you have nothing there.   You can't even call that a "flimsy" case.


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on January 03, 2012, 07:50:32 PM
Or will you just ignore that BUSH was unavailable until just after 9:16

He was "unavailable" because of this, OzmO?:

And where was the president at this time?  Reading stories to children when he learns of the attack at 9:06.  He finishes the stories at about 9:16 and doesn't leave the school until 9:29.

Looks like this applies to you:

You have made up your mind...
 



Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on January 03, 2012, 08:17:01 PM
He was "unavailable" because of this, OzmO?:

Looks like this applies to you:
  



He wasn't reading stories?  He was doing what he was doing, nothing changes that.  

but let's say for instance he was reachable, would it have made any difference in the success of the attack?

No.

When I see something that isn't based on a unproven premise/speculation, multiple incorrect assumptions, or evidence surfaces that shows otherwise, i am only left through logic and common sense that:  


Fact:  HE did not deliberately thwart the defense of the nation due to his inaction.

Fact:  HE did not deliberately thwart the defense of the nation due to his actions.


Show me otherwise and i will change my mind.  



Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on January 03, 2012, 08:35:24 PM
He was able to communicate, so he was available.  You cannot use the fact that he was reading to a class as an excuse for non-formation of the NCA.

The thing is, I know damned well that you understand this.


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on January 03, 2012, 10:18:51 PM
He was able to communicate, so he was available.  You cannot use the fact that he was reading to a class as an excuse for non-formation of the NCA.

The thing is, I know damned well that you understand this.
So now we are talking about Bush?  I thought the issue here in this thread was Rumsfeld.  We can talk about that if you want.   Do you understand the concept of "chain of command" as it relates to NCA?
But I'd rather you address your incorrect assumptions and flawed logic on this topic first.

The funny part of this to me is the minutes you expected all this to happen and because it didn't happened the way you think it should you think Rumsfeld is guilty even though it wouldn't have mattered anyway.  I mean Jack come on!  Doesnt that just lack any sense to you?


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on January 04, 2012, 11:13:56 AM
So now we are talking about Bush?

Or will you just ignore that BUSH was unavailable until just after 9:16

You're running from the truth, OzmO.  Take it from it me, that doesn't work.

Do you understand the concept of "chain of command" as it relates to NCA?

I do understand.  That's why I brought it to the thread.

But I'd rather you address your incorrect assumptions and flawed logic on this topic first.

I'll work on a way for us to plow through to the truth, as tough as it may be.

The sub-topic of Bush is a good example of our problem.  You are dead set on believing that Bush was 'unavailable' simply because he was in a classroom.  You will then purposely build an entire system of thought based on the idea that Bush was unavailable, when in fact this idea is incorrect.

So...just on the above point, how can you disagree?


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on January 04, 2012, 11:46:48 AM
You're running from the truth, OzmO.  Take it from it me, that doesn't work.

I do understand.  That's why I brought it to the thread.

I'll work on a way for us to plow through to the truth, as tough as it may be.

The sub-topic of Bush is a good example of our problem.  You are dead set on believing that Bush was 'unavailable' simply because he was in a classroom.  You will then purposely build an entire system of thought based on the idea that Bush was unavailable, when in fact this idea is incorrect.

So...just on the above point, how can you disagree?

Jack, we still need to first address the many incorrect assumptions you have made recently on this thread and answer the questions i bought up.  Because i believe you are basing much of your conclusion on these.  but as always,  :), i will address the points you made in this post.  

As for BUSH.  He was in a classroom reading to kids by his choice making him unavailable for 10 minutes.   Meaning he took no calls, make no orders, etc.  It is what it was.  Could he have made himself available?  Of course.  He choose to take 10 minutes a read a story to kids.  HENCE, Rumsfeld could not reach him.  I have been very critical of him in other threads in the past over this, but do not think its in anyway a smoking gun that can proven or used as strong evidence of any foul play.   AND if you look at what he did from 9:16 to 9:29 it will show you Rumsfeld's place in all of this which relates to what i have been saying consistently in this thread about Rumsfeld being more of a administrator. 

_________list of still unanswered questions__________


Who does Rumsfeld call, What does he say to them and when does he call them?

Fact:  HE did not deliberately thwart the defense of the nation due to his inaction.

Fact:  HE did not deliberately thwart the defense of the nation due to his actions.

Show me otherwise

_________Additional questions___________

How does the Chain of Command and the NCA relate to each other?

Just to be clear again, Is your main case that Rumsfeld deliberately thwarted our defense to allow a plane to hit the pentagon based on Rumsfled not calling the POTUS and or whoever(you still haven't answer "WHO" other than the President who wasn't avail for 10 minutes) immediately after 9:03/4 to set up ROE's so that fighters could should down planes without presidential approval even though it wouldn't have made a difference and that Rumsfeld was doing this knowing that a fully fueled jet was heading to crash into a building complex he was in?

Just to make sure in case i am mistaken:  do you agree that whether Rumsfeld did or not try immediately after 9:03 to initiate ROE's on the fly and get word to the military,  flight 77 would have hit either way?


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on January 04, 2012, 09:14:18 PM
OzmO, I have good reason to believe you are in denial.  You are unwilling to to accept facts because that's where the unpleasant truth of this matter is.

When the Flight 77 hit, thinking it was a bomb, he informed his staffers where he was going:  To the area of impact.

This was the period of time when the Command Center was unable to contact him.  It is now a matter of public record.  He did not make arrangements for communication.

It has been covered several times in this thread, which tells me you are blocking the information from your own acknowledgement.

Here is the most basic element.  Do you deny this is the law as it applied, word for word:

Quote from: United States Department of Defense
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


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on January 04, 2012, 09:36:00 PM
OzmO, I have good reason to believe you are in denial.  You are unwilling to to accept facts because that's where the unpleasant truth of this matter is.

This was the period of time when the Command Center was unable to contact him.  It is now a matter of public record.  He did not make arrangements for communication.

It has been covered several times in this thread, which tells me you are blocking the information from your own acknowledgement.

Here is the most basic element.  Do you deny this is the law as it applied, word for word:


Sigh.  You are still avoiding my questions.  You are still running from your incorrect assumptions and there are likely more that can be revealed with more research.

But again, i will address your points immediately.   :)

1.  He's not the person to make the shoot down decision, the president is.
2.  He's more of an administrator
3.  The chain of command is the same thing as the NCA for the purposes of this discussion.
4.  He didn't abandon his post
5.  He didn't order the stoppage of military operations or responses
6.  It wouldn't have matter any way, the plane would have hit
7.  No targets were ever identified
8.  He notified his staff where he was going
9.  NO ONE was waiting for him to make some sort of decision for a shoot down order

Honestly, i could probably add 3-6 more arguments against your charge and incorrect assumption.  

So are you going to keep dodging my questions or avoiding addressing your incorrect assumptions or is this how its going to be from here forward, with dramatics like "avoiding the unpleasant truths" or "they wouldn't dare" BS?


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on January 04, 2012, 10:03:26 PM
I will write a very refined version of my thoughts on the subject, and would welcome you to refine your challenges when you read it.

In the meantime, it is important for me to know whether you deny this was the law as it applied, word for word:

Quote from: United States Department of Defense
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


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on January 04, 2012, 10:07:03 PM
I will write a very refined version of my thoughts on the subject, and would welcome you to refine your challenges when you read it.

In the meantime, it is important for me to know whether you deny this was the law as it applied, word for word:


when have i ever denied it?

The point is, it is not an issue regarding your charge.  HENCE, moot. 



Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on January 04, 2012, 10:08:26 PM
I will write a very refined version of my thoughts on the subject, and would welcome you to refine your challenges when you read it.

In the meantime, it is important for me to know whether you deny this was the law as it applied, word for word:


By the way you need to rewrite your thoughts because most of what you have come up with lately is incorrect.



Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on January 04, 2012, 10:11:02 PM
By the way, here are some comments about Rumsfeld in the 911 Report (also know as the "official story"):

Leader of the National Military Command Center: "For 30 minutes we couldn't find him."

The 911 Commission: "We still don't have a full accounting of Rumsfeld's whereabouts and knowledge on the morning of 9-11"


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on January 04, 2012, 11:20:05 PM
By the way, here are some comments about Rumsfeld in the 911 Report (also know as the "official story"):

Leader of the National Military Command Center: "For 30 minutes we couldn't find him."

The 911 Commission: "We still don't have a full accounting of Rumsfeld's whereabouts and knowledge on the morning of 9-11"

We both know, while it's the official story, it's not the whole story.  And yes, communication was not timely and perfect that day in many many many instances between many many many parties.  

Additionally, without serious research and cross examination, the research I have done indicates that Rumsfeld was accounted for pretty much at all times here.  So, I'd ask you to, if possible provide a link to that 9/11 commission  report.  Feel free to this before answering those questions I asked or address the incorrect assumptions I listed.  


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on January 05, 2012, 12:11:25 PM
We both know, while it's the official story, it's not the whole story.  And yes, communication was not timely and perfect that day in many many many instances between many many many parties.

It was a lack of communication between the two members of the National Command Authority that is most important.  

Additionally, without serious research and cross examination, the research I have done indicates that Rumsfeld was accounted for pretty much at all times here.

Using hindsight, or...?

So, I'd ask you to, if possible provide a link to that 9/11 commission  report.  Feel free to this before answering those questions I asked or address the incorrect assumptions I listed.  

http://www.911commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on January 06, 2012, 08:48:44 AM
No it isn't important because it (the NCA/Chain of command) didn't hinge on the communication between BUSH and Rumsfeld in the minutes after 903 to get a shoot down order done.  

Not in hindsight, on record.  Do you know what i am talking about when I use the word "hindsight" when showing you the error in your charges versus me saying Rumsfeld was pretty much accounted for during the events of 9/11?  Because your statement suggests you don't.

Quote
http://www.911commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

Pretty sure It's not in there.  You might want to research it again, maybe some place other than a truther site. 


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on January 06, 2012, 09:54:16 PM
No it isn't important because it (the NCA/Chain of command) didn't hinge on the communication between BUSH and Rumsfeld in the minutes after 903 to get a shoot down order done.

They're not psychic, OzmO.

Please stop and think for a minute.  Even if the situation worked like you believe:

He knows when they get a hijacked plane identified and intercepted the decision can be made then.

The number one problem we were facing was a lack of time to react.  Even the thickest skulled person could see this.  Beyond all the ways that time was already working against us, were we to add further time to allow for contact between the President and the Secretary of Defense, after the need was to present itself?

This was an attack involving commercial airliners.  How could they possibly presume to know that their command as the NCA wouldn't be required under such conditions?  The exact opposite thought should have occurred to both of them, yet neither responded as such.

Step by step, point by point, it was a pattern of behavior that spanned individuals and worked toward increasing the chance for a successful attack.  Willful, deliberate behavior that went against what should be expected.  

Not in hindsight, on record.  Do you know what i am talking about when I use the word "hindsight" when showing you the error in your charges versus me saying Rumsfeld was pretty much accounted for during the events of 9/11?  Because your statement suggests you don't.

OzmO, it is only by looking back that we can say where Rumsfeld had been at 0937-10xx.

More importantly, the same truth applies to the NMCC, who had tried unsuccessfully to locate him at that time.

Again...step by step...willful and deliberate...opposite of expected.

This is not a series of coincidences.

Pretty sure It's not in there.  You might want to research it again, maybe some place other than a truther site.  

Please look at comments made by Commissioner Gorelick, and comments made by General Winfield, regarding Rumsfeld.


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on January 06, 2012, 10:37:11 PM
By the way, I meant to say these comments were omitted from the official story.


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on January 09, 2012, 04:23:28 PM
They're not psychic, OzmO.

Please stop and think for a minute.  Even if the situation worked like you believe:

The number one problem we were facing was a lack of time to react.  Even the thickest skulled person could see this.  Beyond all the ways that time was already working against us, were we to add further time to allow for contact between the President and the Secretary of Defense, after the need was to present itself?

This was an attack involving commercial airliners.  How could they possibly presume to know that their command as the NCA wouldn't be required under such conditions?  The exact opposite thought should have occurred to both of them, yet neither responded as such.

Step by step, point by point, it was a pattern of behavior that spanned individuals and worked toward increasing the chance for a successful attack.  Willful, deliberate behavior that went against what should be expected.  

Most of what you wrote there is based on hindsight.  You know the answers because you know exactly what was happening and when.  The people involved here did not know and in many cases not in direct communication with otherS and many many people were involved.  I have explained in detail as to why, even giving account to your incorrect assumptions of what you felt they should have known.  Also, this was an attack never before attempted on this scale, which was beyond belief even though it happened right before their eyes.  The DS, although could order it, wouldn't be the one to do it.  He'd defer to the president.  the president was unavailable, there were no identified threats, communication lines were being set up in the minutes immediately following the second WTC crash, and planes were being scrambled.  

Basically it just happen too fast.  And of course again, it wouldn't have made any difference at all, because flight 77 hits regardless of the DS magically knowing exactly what to do.  Refer to the post of your 3 incorrect assumptions concerning what the DS knew at 9:04.  Heck, refer to the many other incorrect assumptoins you have based your charge on.  
 
Quote
OzmO, it is only by looking back that we can say where Rumsfeld had been at 0937-10xx.

More importantly, the same truth applies to the NMCC, who had tried unsuccessfully to locate him at that time.

Again...step by step...willful and deliberate...opposite of expected.

This is not a series of coincidences.

Where Rumsfeld was, in the context of your charge, from 9:37 to 10:00 is meaningless because the plane already hit and its not unreasonable for him to want to see what just happened.  Further more, during that time, he notified his staff where he was going and it was verified by witnesses who interacted with him at the crash sight.  Also, again and again and again,  HE's MORE OF AN ADMINISTRATOR not a on duty commander, a distinction absent in your theory.  Think of it like this:

9/11 was a football game where the Cowboys got blindsided on the field.

NORAD was the coach, who didn't have the information to make a call
BUSH was Jimmy Jones in the luxury suite talking to the press who also didn't have the information to make the right call
Rumsfeld was GM of player personal.  (if you know anything about football you'll know what that means)
NEADS/Pilots where the Cowboy players

Quote
Please look at comments made by Commissioner Gorelick, and comments made by General Winfield, regarding Rumsfeld.

I am familiar that they are comments, but they are not in the "Official report" as suggested.  They are comments whose context and time they were made are not accounted for.  (Likely a typical "Cherry picking" example frequent in many CT type arguments) However, Rumsfeld whereabouts are well accounted for completely invalidating Gorelicks comments.

So in summary:

You are charging Rumsfeld with not acting accordingly in the moments from 9:03 to 9:37 even though it wouldn't have made any difference and therefore is guilty of being behind 9/11  (since you are making it a habit of not directly answering my questions this is what i am left to understand)

Which brings up my questions:  

Who does Rumsfeld call, What does he say to them and when does he call them?

Fact:  HE did not deliberately thwart the defense of the nation due to his inaction.

Fact:  HE did not deliberately thwart the defense of the nation due to his actions.

Show me otherwise

Being that you have now over 3 times avoided these questions and many others i am left to assume you can't answer them and left with the conclusion that your theory is purely based on conjecture, speculation and baseless charges.

I don't accept truth that way.  I try not to formulate theories and work backwards only paying attention to anything no matter how remote that can be applied to support it while ignoring the rest.  

Show me proof.  Show me facts.  Show me otherwise and then i change my mind.  I am always ready to make a new decision based on new information.  (but the info has to be legit, not like that omitted out of context quip when weighed against the thurough accountability of Rumsfeld whereabouts on 9-11)

PS Those comments were likely omitted because they WERE FALSE as i have shown repeatedly.  Show me otherwise.


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on January 10, 2012, 08:11:19 PM
You're being dishonest with yourself.

the president was unavailable

your 3 incorrect assumptions concerning what the DS knew at 9:04


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on January 10, 2012, 08:52:12 PM
You're being dishonest with yourself.


No.  Show me otherwise.

PS no offense, you are not making much sense lately and you have been ignoring many of my questions which speaks volumes.


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on January 10, 2012, 09:35:49 PM
No.  Show me otherwise.


In the face of death and destruction like the country had never seen, you are trying to make an argument that the President was unavailable--when Rumsfeld didn't attempt to contact him in the first place.

In The Name of God, please think of what you are saying.

My friend, you do not want to piece this together.  I understand.

I've been able to refine this particular argument thanks to you more than anyone else, and it's been interesting.  I appreciate it.  

You're a good bro, OzmO.  Respect.


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on January 10, 2012, 09:53:41 PM

In the face of death and destruction like the country had never seen, you are trying to make an argument that the President was unavailable--when Rumsfeld didn't attempt to contact him in the first place.
In The Name of God, please think of what you are saying.
My friend, you do not want to piece this together.  I understand.
I've been able to refine this particular argument thanks to you more than anyone else, and it's been interesting.  I appreciate it.  
You're a good bro, OzmO.  Respect.

And this is why you think he's guilty of thwarting our defenses to allow flight 77 to hit?

You are not making sense Jack, piece it together for me.  ANSWER my questions, SHOW me were were your inccorrect assumptions ARE correct.
Quote
I've been able to refine this particular argument thanks to you more than anyone else, and it's been interesting.

You doing exactly what I accused you of.  You started with the belief that Rumsfeld was guilty of your charge and work backwards searching for anything you could to apply to support it while ignore everything else.  If you truly were interested in finding the truth you wouldn't have needed me.




Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on January 10, 2012, 09:57:47 PM
Jack, seriously. Go back and answer those questions and show me where your incorrect assumptions ARE correct. Especially the last 3 pages.  Stop running from it.


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on January 10, 2012, 09:59:52 PM
And Jack, I am serious.  You are doing, what many CT'ers do, you are running from FACTS and replacing them with incorrect assumptions.


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: _bruce_ on January 12, 2012, 01:09:36 PM
Rumsfeld was busy watching CSI and didn't feel like contacting Bush  :D


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Calloway on April 02, 2012, 06:40:07 PM

He didn't know hijacked planes were flown into buildings because at 9:03 he hadn't been notified any flights were hijacked.  He can assume, but he wouldn't act on it until there was verification.  

He didn't know where those planes came from because even if the news, (which i don't think it was) was reporting at 9:03  which flight it was and were it originated from,  the military would independently verify it first.  It would have taken a few minutes at the very best for the news to figure out which flight it was.

He knew only that 3000-5000 planes were in the air in the USA at the time.  That's all.


When everyone was watching that second plane hit the building (about 10 minutes after the first plane hit), you cant believe that Rumsfeld didnt know what was happening. Holy shit. He would literally be the only person in the world that watched that and didn't know what was going on.
 


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on April 02, 2012, 07:14:59 PM

When everyone was watching that second plane hit the building (about 10 minutes after the first plane hit), you cant believe that Rumsfeld didnt know what was happening. Holy shit. He would literally be the only person in the world that watched that and didn't know what was going on.
 

So on TV in that instant or the minutes shortly there after he surmises and deduces form all other possible explanations that a plane was hijacked by suicide crazed terrorists and flown directly into a building all by design.


What did he do or not do to thwart our defenses on that day to allow a plane to hit the pentagon?

What should he have done?

You are Rumsfeld, take me through exactly what you would have done.


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Calloway on April 02, 2012, 07:51:58 PM
So on TV in that instant or the minutes shortly there after he surmises and deduces form all other possible explanations that a plane was hijacked by suicide crazed terrorists and flown directly into a building all by design.

It was two planes into two buildings, right after one another.  What are all these other possible explanations he was deducing, lol

[quote
What did he do or not do to thwart our defenses on that day to allow a plane to hit the pentagon?

What should he have done?

You are Rumsfeld, take me through exactly what you would have done.
[/quote]

I would throw my plans for the day aside, first of all. The I would put in an earpiece and tell my assistants to put the president on.  Then I would got to the ESC instead of my office, where COMMUINCATION would take place. Fuck! how do expect anything to get done if there isn't communication?

In other words, I would do everything he didn't do!


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on April 02, 2012, 07:55:16 PM
It was two planes into two buildings, right after one another.  What are all these other possible explanations he was deducing, lol

I would throw my plans for the day aside, first of all. The I would put in an earpiece and tell my assistants to put the president on.  Then I would got to the ESC instead of my office, where COMMUINCATION would take place. Fuck! how do expect anything to get done if there isn't communication?

In other words, I would do everything he didn't do!

How would have any of that stopped the plane from hitting the pentagon?



Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Calloway on April 02, 2012, 08:24:27 PM
If someone had the crazy idea to have a plane circle Washington, it could have prevented it. Sure.  But what does this have to do with the decisions Rummy was making on that day?


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on April 02, 2012, 08:33:10 PM
If someone had the crazy idea to have a plane circle Washington, it could have prevented it. Sure.  But what does this have to do with the decisions Rummy was making on that day?

Where would the plane come from?

At 9:03 they didn't know anothe rplane was hijacked.   They didnt know until almost 25 minutes later and didnt know exactly hwere it was heading.  On top of that they were relying on primiary radar (blips) becuase the transponder had been turned off.  And there were radar holes everywhere  the plane hit the pentagon at 9:37  On the entire eastern seaboard there where only 14 jet on the hot pads.  The closest one had 2 f-16 that were scrambled over there that got there minutes after the impact.

So again I ask you, what would you have Rumsfeld do to stop it?


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Calloway on April 02, 2012, 09:34:00 PM
Where would the plane come from?

At 9:03 they didn't know anothe rplane was hijacked.   They didnt know until almost 25 minutes later and didnt know exactly hwere it was heading.  On top of that they were relying on primiary radar (blips) becuase the transponder had been turned off.  And there were radar holes everywhere  the plane hit the pentagon at 9:37  On the entire eastern seaboard there where only 14 jet on the hot pads.  The closest one had 2 f-16 that were scrambled over there that got there minutes after the impact.

lol.. they could have gotten a plane to circle our most sensitive city in time.  The city that the continuity of our government relies on. 


Quote
So again I ask you, what would you have Rumsfeld do to stop it?

I would have him do something that showed he wanted the rampage to end.  Something that had to do with the  MILITARY, not the damn CIA like the guy he was with! Tell me how it was more important to be with a CIA agent than with military commanders during this time.  


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on April 03, 2012, 08:27:44 AM
lol.. they could have gotten a plane to circle our most sensitive city in time.  The city that the continuity of our government relies on. 

That's an uninformed assumption based on zero facts.  Show me the facts that support your assertion here.  (you'll find it wasn't possible in the time allotted)

Quote
I would have him do something that showed he wanted the rampage to end.  Something that had to do with the  MILITARY, not the damn CIA like the guy he was with! Tell me how it was more important to be with a CIA agent than with military commanders during this time.  

Are you saying everyone in the military/government wasn't doing anything to stop the "rampage"?  Also, and what would have had Rumsfeld do that the military and government wasn't already doing?



Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Calloway on April 03, 2012, 05:28:17 PM
Quote
That's an uninformed assumption based on zero facts.  Show me the facts that support your assertion here.  (you'll find it wasn't possible in the time allotted)

Let's pretend that's true instead of unknown. How would it affect his decisions at that time?
 
Quote
Are you saying everyone in the military/government wasn't doing anything to stop the "rampage"?

Did I say that?

Quote
Also, and what would have had Rumsfeld do that the military and government wasn't already doing

Maybe act as the Defense Secretary, and dont milk the clock in your office with somebody from the cia when you NEED to be with the military right fucking now? This shit is crazy.

I dont know if you are trolling or what.

Maybe you dont understand that Donald Rumsfeld was the person whose job was to ok commands the military???


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on April 03, 2012, 05:53:26 PM
I think perhaps you don't understand Rumsfeld's role in things, how the military was reacting to the events of the day, and what was known and unknown every minute from 9:03 to 9:37.

I am not trolling I am dead serious.  So i will ask again but I will re word my question a bit:

What exactly do you think rumsfeld  should have done?

Ps: 
 

Maybe act as the Defense Secretary, and dont milk the clock in your office with somebody from the cia when you NEED to be with the military right fucking now?

Is not an answer.

To highlight why that's not an answer I will ask a different question again:  are you saying that the military was frozen waiting for Rumfeld's orders and therefor didn't do anything and that's why the pentagon was hit?


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Calloway on April 03, 2012, 08:34:45 PM
I think perhaps you don't understand Rumsfeld's role in things, how the military was reacting to the events of the day, and what was known and unknown every minute from 9:03 to 9:37.

I am not trolling I am dead serious.  So i will ask again but I will re word my question a bit:

What exactly do you think rumsfeld  should have done?

I would have been happy with him doing ANYTHING, as long as it started with communication. He was on the top of the chain of command with the president. What part of this cant you understand?

This is what makes me think you are trolling.

Quote
Ps:  
Is not an answer.

To highlight why that's not an answer I will ask a different question again:  are you saying that the military was frozen waiting for Rumfeld's orders and therefor didn't do anything and that's why the pentagon was hit?

Get the "is that why the pentagon was hit" stuff out of your head. No one knows the answer to that, because it would have depended on a number of factors. No one knows the answer to that now, no one knew the answer to it then.

This is about the decisions made, not speculation about something we have no data for.

When Bush talked to Cheney about ordering air cover, Cheney decided that it wouldn't be worth it since it would require Rumsfeld to give an order to shoot down a plane that was hijacked.

WHY THE FUCK would not Cheney get Rumsfeld right there on the spot and take care of the problem??

What could it be??  HMMMMMM...

Could it be he was doing everything in his power to keep the blood flowing?


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on April 04, 2012, 10:28:44 AM
I would have been happy with him doing ANYTHING, as long as it started with communication. He was on the top of the chain of command with the president. What part of this cant you understand?

This is what makes me think you are trolling.

We don't know exactly what he was doing with the CIA agent in his office.  Point is though, which is the point of the thread, he wasn't doing anything to thwart US military from doing its job.  I can speculate about what he was doing, however what do know is this:

-  He was told in the minutes after 9:03 that a second plane had hit the pentagon
-  He was informed that a crisis management team was being set up
-  He instructed his PA officer to wait for him at the ESC while he made a few phone calls
-  He told his PA that he would making some phone calls
-  He was with his CIA briefer at the time.

What you FAIL to understand as do most 9/11 CT'ers is that Rumsfeld is not a on duty battlefield commander.  Like for example, the on duty officers at NEADS (North Eastern Air Defense Sector)  Rumsfeld is more of an administrator/politician and that he's a civilian. From 9:03 onward the military was doing its job.

Show again, show me what Rumsfeld did to thwart the military defense of our country that was already in motion.

Quote
Get the "is that why the pentagon was hit" stuff out of your head. No one knows the answer to that, because it would have depended on a number of factors. No one knows the answer to that now, no one knew the answer to it then.

Yes we do.  i can tell you exactly why a plane was hijacked, slipped through the seems of our defenses and hit the penetagon.  Pretty simple and available to anyone who wants to do the research.

Quote
This is about the decisions made, not speculation about something we have no data for.

When Bush talked to Cheney about ordering air cover, Cheney decided that it wouldn't be worth it since it would require Rumsfeld to give an order to shoot down a plane that was hijacked.

WHY THE FUCK would not Cheney get Rumsfeld right there on the spot and take care of the problem??

What could it be??  HMMMMMM...

Could it be he was doing everything in his power to keep the blood flowing?

Not true.  Legally it was determined way after the fact that Rumsfeld could have ordered a shoot down of a civilian plane.  At the time of 9/11 there were no provisions, protocols or contingency plans for a crisis like this.  So it fell on BUSH as the one to order it.  The problems was at 9:03 to about 9:30 they no targets.

So again, and again, and some more:

What could Rumsfeld had done to prevent the pentagon from getting hit?

On a side note to let me better understanding of the foundation of your beliefs reading 911 please answer the following questions:

Do you believe the pentagon was hit by a (the) plane or a missile?
Do you believe Rumsfeld deliberately thwarted our defenses to allow this to happen or do you believe it was through his incompetence it happened?
Do you believe the WTC's were wired prior to 9/11 to help them fall and that our government was behind the whole thing?

PS:  Again, i am not a trolling, so quit it with the accusation.  I am dead serious and am willing to debate you on this in detail with facts.  However, save the Rhetorical arguments for the less informed.  

cheesy ass questions/comments like:

1.  They could have gotten a plane to circle our most sensitive city in time.  (show me based on facts where they could have done that instead of just claiming it)

2. It was two planes into two buildings, right after one another.  What are all these other possible explanations he was deducing, lol  (I could list a few)

3.  If someone had the crazy idea to have a plane circle Washington, it could have prevented it. Sure.  But what does this have to do with the decisions Rummy was making on that day?  (understand Rumsfeld role in military operations and that the military response was already in motion you will see there was nothing rumsfeld could have done either way to change the outcome of Flight 77 hitting the pentagon)

So, Calloway, i hope you are seeing now that i am not "trolling" ( ::)).  what i am asking you to do is show, based on facts using available information and the timeline what Rumsfeld did or didn't do to thwart our defenses from 9:03 to 9:37 and or that because of what he didn't or didn't do could have prevented it from hitting the pentagon.  (using facts, not empty rhetoric not based on facts)

Are you up to it Calloway?


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Calloway on April 04, 2012, 05:56:21 PM
You just cant get the 'wouldnt prevent the pentagon from being hit' out of your mind for some reason.

I want you to list a couple of those possibilities.


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on April 04, 2012, 06:11:53 PM
You just cant get the 'wouldnt prevent the pentagon from being hit' out of your mind for some reason.

I want you to list a couple of those possibilities.

I am not sure what you are getting at with the "wouldn't prevent the pentagon" thing.  Please explain.

I am saying that regardless of what was done by Rumsfeld, (for many reasons i can explain in detail based on facts) the plane hits anyway.

Other possibilities?

The planes were taken over by remote control
1 was an accident the other was a crazed pilot
Both were accidents due to faulty equipment
They weren't passenger planes but instead cargo, or 1 was 1 wasn't

I am sure I could think of others.  But thats not the point, the point is again, what did Rumsfeld do or not do to thwart our defenses and cuase the pentagon to get hit?

Can you make a case or not?  Because so far it seems you have used nothing but rhetoric void of supporting facts and semantics.  


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on April 04, 2012, 06:17:00 PM
Further more, the issue of whether or not Rumsfeld's actions can or cannot prevent the plane from hitting the pentagon is very important because if it would have any way( which is provable) so you cant pin any wrong doing on him, which you couldn't any way. 

You should forget your rhetoric for a while and spend a few hours researching it on non CT'er sites and you will see what I mean.


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on April 04, 2012, 06:19:40 PM


Do you believe the pentagon was hit by a (the) plane or a missile?
Do you believe Rumsfeld deliberately thwarted our defenses to allow this to happen or do you believe it was through his incompetence it happened?
Do you believe the WTC's were wired prior to 9/11 to help them fall and that our government was behind the whole thing?



bump


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Calloway on April 04, 2012, 06:51:27 PM
It matters because it doesnt have anything to do with the decisions that were being made THEN. It is like a person swinging a baseball bat at someones head with the idea of killing them, but the person is able to duck and run away, then afterwords saying "oh, it doesnt matter what mr. baseball bat swinger did, because it wouldnt have hit anyway since the guy was able to duck and run away"

Look man, I dont know if you are just so desperate to hold your ground or if you really dont understand.


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Calloway on April 04, 2012, 06:52:24 PM
The fact that they didnt communicate.  That right there says so much.  It's not only that Cheney didnt initiate contact with Rummy, or Rummy with Cheney, or Bush with Rummy, or Rummy with Bush...because actually, ALL of that happened...it happened during the most important time EVER for them to communicate. 
















































What should be the possibility of something like that happening? 



































Now what should be the possibilty of that happening WITHOUT EXPLANATION??


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on April 04, 2012, 07:10:43 PM
dude, no need for the leaving soo much space between sentences dramatics.  I mean really?  

It matters because it doesnt have anything to do with the decisions that were being made THEN. It is like a person swinging a baseball bat at someones head with the idea of killing them, but the person is able to duck and run away, then afterwords saying "oh, it doesnt matter what mr. baseball bat swinger did, because it wouldnt have hit anyway since the guy was able to duck and run away"

Look man, I dont know if you are just so desperate to hold your ground or if you really dont understand.

Rumsfeld wasn't swinging a bat nor did he have the contention of killing anyone.  So your analogy falls flat there.  Can you show any evidence or intention that says other wise?

The fact that they didnt communicate.  That right there says so much.  It's not only that Cheney didnt initiate contact with Rummy, or Rummy with Cheney, or Bush with Rummy, or Rummy with Bush...because actually, ALL of that happened...it happened during the most important time EVER for them to communicate.

What should be the possibility of something like that happening?
Now what should be the possibilty of that happening WITHOUT EXPLANATION??

They did communicate.  At around 10.  Do you know why?  Do you know what each person was doing at each minute from 9:03 to 9:37?  Do you know what military and civilian counterparts were doing at the time?

And had they communicated what then?  How would it have changed anything in that: Would they have had the power to stop it by communicating in the 34 minutes between the 2 impacts?






Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on April 08, 2012, 07:01:20 PM
Hi Jack, how's it going?

You are incorrect on Rumfeld knowing or giving the order to go ATC zero on 911

IN fact you are  also incorrect as to when the full order given and who it was given by.

Try Sliney at around 9:15, Garvey at 9:28 and Mineta at 9:45

(no offense, but this isn't the first time)

I hope your argument isn't based on this too much, also you Are doing it again:  starting with a conclusion and then trying to make assumptions support it rather than actual evidence.  


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on April 08, 2012, 08:51:12 PM
Hi Jack, how's it going?

You are incorrect on Rumfeld knowing or giving the order to go ATC zero on 911

IN fact you are  also incorrect as to when the full order given and who it was given by.

Try Sliney at around 9:15, Garvey at 9:28 and Mineta at 9:45

(no offense, but this isn't the first time)

I hope your argument isn't based on this too much, also you Are doing it again:  starting with a conclusion and then trying to make assumptions support it rather than actual evidence. 


I know Rumsfeld didn't give the order for that, OzmO.


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on April 08, 2012, 08:53:08 PM
I hope you're well, by the way.


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on April 09, 2012, 08:21:16 AM
I hope you're well, by the way.

Thanks

I know Rumsfeld didn't give the order for that, OzmO.

Unless you can prove that Rumsfeld could have stopped the attack on the pentagon but chose not to AND had intent for malice there is no crime here nor is there any evidence or legit arguments of him being part of a mass conspiracy other than baseless rhetorical/falsely loaded arguments..



Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on April 09, 2012, 11:33:35 AM
Any action, taken by any person, would be an attempt toward decreasing, or toward increasing, the chance for further death.


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on April 09, 2012, 12:00:41 PM
Any action, taken by any person, would be an attempt toward decreasing, or toward increasing, the chance for further death.

Not if you can't prove intent.  Otherwise you have a charge of incompetence which wouldnt even stick because there isn't anything Rumsfeld could have done to stop the plane fromhitting based on what forces were available and known at the time. 


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on April 09, 2012, 01:26:38 PM
Not if you can't prove intent.  Otherwise you have a charge of incompetence which wouldnt even stick because there isn't anything Rumsfeld could have done to stop the plane fromhitting based on what forces were available and known at the time. 

In that case, can you prove for me that his intent was to shorten the reaction time?


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on April 09, 2012, 02:50:14 PM
In that case, can you prove for me that his intent was to shorten the reaction time?


It doesn't matter what his intent was so long as it wasn't criminal in nature or shows he intentionally did things to thwart our defenses to allow the plane to hit.

The burden of proof here is on you the CT'er.  You must prove:

A.  Rumfeld intended to thwart our defenses on 9/11

AND

B.  his actions or Inaction caused our defenses not to operate properly and there fore the
plane did hit.


Ps:  your retort sounds like the old:  "then prove God doesn't exist"





Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on April 09, 2012, 06:29:33 PM
It doesn't matter what his intent was so long as it wasn't criminal in nature or shows he intentionally did things to thwart our defenses to allow the plane to hit.

The burden of proof here is on you the CT'er.  You must prove:

A.  Rumfeld intended to thwart our defenses on 9/11

AND

B.  his actions or Inaction caused our defenses not to operate properly and there fore the
plane did hit.



Ps:  your retort sounds like the old:  "then prove God doesn't exist"

Why do you suppose you've been unable to prevent yourself from using this crutch for your argument? 

Please think about this, carefully, before you answer.



Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on April 09, 2012, 07:41:44 PM
Why do you suppose you've been unable to prevent yourself from using this crutch for your argument? 

Please think about this, carefully, before you answer.




I have no idea what you are talking about.

Just speak plainly, no need to play games.  I am not in forum combat mode. 

Its simple:


The burden of proof here is on you the CT'er.  You must prove:

A.  Rumfeld intended to thwart our defenses on 9/11

AND

B.  his actions or Inaction caused our defenses not to operate properly and there fore the
plane did hit.

You either can do it or you cant. 



Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on April 10, 2012, 11:47:30 AM
You have said it "doesn't matter", meaning you believe the Pentagon would have been hit "anyway", as though Rumsfeld had been aware of some exact predestined schedule, with all variables known, including a known number of planes, and behaved accordingly.

Needless to say, that doesn't make sense.

Beyond the fact that the suggestion drifts into a territory that we cannot know, unlike the rest of our fact-based discussion, it is also completely irrelevant to the topic of Rumsfeld's willful failure to act toward reducing the chance for further bloodshed.

Perhaps he thought people could protect themselves from crashing planes(?).


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on April 10, 2012, 08:20:53 PM
Another classic assumption by you that is similar to how you approach finding out or analyzing things.

I do not say it as though Rumsfeld was aware of some predestined schedule with all variables known.  I repeat I do not say that.

I am simply saying that our defenses were in motion and doing what they had been trained to do.  He didn't know a plane was heading to the pentagon, nor did anyone until around 9:25 or so because of all the many many facts I listed about how our defenses worked.  In fact they only knew a plane was in the ara and didn't know it's target.  As soon as a plane was identified, 2 f-16 were vectored in that direction only to get there minutes late.  Rumsfeld, did not thwart this process in any way. It's a process involving many components of the military who were rushing to do there jobs that morning.  Hence the plane  hits anyway regardless of what Rumsfeld does or doesn't do.

Seemingly every approach you have towards this involves unsupported assumptions.  almost like a witch trial.  


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on April 10, 2012, 09:51:31 PM
I am simply saying that our defenses were in motion and doing what they had been trained to do.  He didn't know a plane was heading to the pentagon, nor did anyone until around 9:25 or so because of all the many many facts I listed about how our defenses worked.  In fact they only knew a plane was in the ara and didn't know it's target.  As soon as a plane was identified, 2 f-16 were vectored in that direction only to get there minutes late.  Rumsfeld, did not thwart this process in any way. It's a process involving many components of the military who were rushing to do there jobs that morning.  Hence the plane  hits anyway regardless of what Rumsfeld does or doesn't do.  

In other words, many burned, dead bodies later, from the WTC, as we experience again, our defenses were unable to respond to this method of attack in time.

"There was only one thing that was under Rumsfeld's control that would have had an immediate effect on decreasing the chance for further death, and that was to shorten our reaction time to such threats."

Are you seeing it now, OzmO?


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on April 11, 2012, 12:18:47 AM
In other words, many burned, dead bodies later, from the WTC, as we experience again, our defenses were unable to respond to this method of attack in time.

"There was only one thing that was under Rumsfeld's control that would have had an immediate effect on decreasing the chance for further death, and that was to shorten our reaction time to such threats."

Are you seeing it now, OzmO?

No, beucase regardless, what he would have done (short of knowing exactly if where and when the next attack was coming) wouldn't have changed anything.

Another classic assumption by you that is similar to how you approach finding out or analyzing things.

I do not say it as though Rumsfeld was aware of some predestined schedule with all variables known.  I repeat I do not say that.

I am simply saying that our defenses were in motion and doing what they had been trained to do.  He didn't know a plane was heading to the pentagon, nor did anyone until around 9:25 or so because of all the many many facts I listed about how our defenses worked.  In fact they only knew a plane was in the ara and didn't know it's target.  As soon as a plane was identified, 2 f-16 were vectored in that direction only to get there minutes late.  Rumsfeld, did not thwart this process in any way. It's a process involving many components of the military who were rushing to do there jobs that morning.  Hence the plane  hits anyway regardless of what Rumsfeld does or doesn't do.

Seemingly every approach you have towards this involves unsupported assumptions.  almost like a witch trial.  

In addition, at around 9:25 they only knew it "probably" has been hijacked (not verified, and certainly not visually verified) and didn't know its target.
________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ___
Are things becoming more sensible and less mythical now Jack?


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on April 11, 2012, 10:16:27 PM
No, beucase regardless, what he would have done (short of knowing exactly if where and when the next attack was coming) wouldn't have changed anything.

Help, God.  Please think about what you're saying.  A simple line of communication between Rumsfeld and Bush would have changed the most important item that could be changed: the probability for further mass murder.

Any talk of effects beyond that would be based upon imaginary decisions and communication that never took place.

In addition, at around 9:25 they only knew it "probably" has been hijacked (not verified, and certainly not visually verified) and didn't know its target.

How would this affect Donald Rumsfeld's ability, at 0903 and beyond, to reduce the chance for further death?


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on April 12, 2012, 07:45:41 AM
Help, God.  Please think about what you're saying.  A simple line of communication between Rumsfeld and Bush would have changed the most important item that could be changed: the probability for further mass murder.
Any talk of effects beyond that would be based upon imaginary decisions and communication that never took place.


You are talking in space again.   That's not the issue here, the issue is whether or not Rumsfeld intentionally thwarted our defenses to allow he plane to hit.  It's NOT whether or not Rumsfeld and bush communicating sooner would have potentially prevented potential mass murder.  In regards to the pentagon,it wouldn't have changed anything.

remember:
The burden of proof here is on you the CT'er.  You must prove:

A.  Rumfeld intended to thwart our defenses on 9/11

AND

B.  his actions or Inaction caused our defenses not to operate properly and there fore the
plane did hit.

You either can do it or you cant.  
  So far it doesn't seem like you can because all you really seem to do is bring up arguments that are based on little or no facts, but instead assumptions and loaded questions.  (Proving something doesn't work that way)

Quote
How would this affect Donald Rumsfeld's ability, at 0903 and beyond, to reduce the chance for further death?

How does what other people know at 925 affect what Rumsfeld can do at 903????


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on April 12, 2012, 05:54:43 PM
OzmO, would agree that Rumsfeld was bound by a forward-looking perspective that morning?


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on April 12, 2012, 06:23:06 PM
OzmO, would agree that Rumsfeld was bound by a forward-looking perspective that morning?

What do you mean exactly?


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on April 12, 2012, 10:37:15 PM
What do you mean exactly?

Scrap that.  My browser froze when I was trying to post something.


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on April 14, 2012, 11:05:21 AM
OzmO, I have to ask if you believe it is inconceivable that any action or order, of any content, that would have been generated at approximately 0903, could have had an effect on an event that happened at 0937.

We're going off the track here, but I need to have a better idea of your thoughts.


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on April 14, 2012, 12:19:41 PM
OzmO, I have to ask if you believe it was inconceivable that any action or order, of any content, that would have been generated at approximately 0903, could have had an effect on an event that happened at 0937.

We're going off the track here, but I need to have a better idea of your thoughts.
Not likely.  They didn't have:

-  verified hijacked plane
-  the exact location of that plane
- the ability to quickly FInd the plane
- nor it's target
-  and didn't have available armed jets

That's why I say it wouldn't have mattered.  The jet hits rEgardless. 

Now if you have any facts (not empty arguments based on rhetoric or conjecture) that show otherwise or Counter those I listed that support your charge I would be real interested in hearing it. 


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on April 14, 2012, 12:38:47 PM
Not likely.  They didn't have...


In that case, please describe an unlikely scenario that could be an exception in your opinion.


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on April 14, 2012, 02:11:22 PM
In that case, please describe an unlikely scenario that could be an exception in your opinion.

Just think the opposite of the 5 things listed.

I am starting to think that all you have are empty arguments/rhetoric/conjecture


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on April 14, 2012, 02:14:16 PM


Now if you have any facts (not empty arguments based on rhetoric or conjecture) that show otherwise or Counter those I listed that support your charge I would be real interested in hearing it. 


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on April 14, 2012, 03:48:42 PM
Just think the opposite of the 5 things listed.



That's fine.  Just so it's clear to me, and so we are on the same page here, these are items related to a specific threat.  

Is that correct?


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on April 14, 2012, 05:22:25 PM
You are doing it again.  Just get to the point please.


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on April 14, 2012, 11:22:36 PM
You are doing it again.  Just get to the point please.

 ???


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on April 15, 2012, 07:42:21 AM
I asking you to just get to your point.  Commonly you just ask a series of leading questions, similar to what a person would do in a conversation.  Too much can get lost doing that in a forum and it becomes tedious on my end with you often ignoring my requests or questions and all do is end up tyuping and repeating the same answers over and over.  So maybe you are trying to make to distinction between being general response to varied threats and a response to a specific threat.  If that's the case just make your point. 

Or just admit all you have are empty arguments.


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on April 15, 2012, 08:40:49 PM
So maybe you are trying to make to distinction between being general response...and a response to a specific threat.  

Wait a minute.  If you understand the distinction, why haven't you accounted for it in your argument?


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on April 15, 2012, 09:49:31 PM
Wait a minute.  If you understand the distinction, why haven't you accounted for it in your argument?



I have, why haven't you?


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on April 16, 2012, 09:27:53 AM


I have, why haven't you?

Please explain.


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on April 16, 2012, 07:58:32 PM
Please explain.

Read my posts in the thread, why haven't you accounted for it in your argument?


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on April 17, 2012, 08:32:40 AM
Fair enough.  Let's have a closer look at this part of the story.

Regarding a general response, I said this...

Quote
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.

And you responded...

Quote
All you have here at the most is a charge of incompetence born from hindsight.

Let me ask you directly, in your opinion, if it was incompetence that prevented such a ruleset from being placed into effect.


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on April 17, 2012, 05:36:44 PM
Did they have a  uncooperative plane triangulated between 903 and 937?

Meticulously contemplate your answer.


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on April 17, 2012, 10:08:16 PM
I want a sincere answer.


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on April 18, 2012, 08:07:27 AM
I want a sincere answer.

So do I.  

The difference is my question is about facts yours is about conjecture.  

Do you believe the truth is based on facts or conjecture?

BTW what rule-set are you talking about exactly?  (explain the rule set in detail because chances are, your ruleset is unrealistic)

Also, i will answer your question directly upon clarification of  the ruleset, AND when you answer mine plus  the one on this post.


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on April 18, 2012, 09:55:35 PM
This is leading us to a place that would suggest Donald Rumsfeld had presumed -- completely without communication or consultation of any sort -- to know more about such issues than the people who are trained in them, and furthermore it suggests that he made such an egregious presumption while hundreds of civilians were being killed, and more planes were still in the sky.

"Whether such an action would include a preemptive ruleset for the most obvious and imminent threat, or if it would be nothing more than a maintained line of communication as the National Command Authority -- done, in order to expedite rules for a threat already in motion..."


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on April 19, 2012, 07:28:18 AM

All you did was regurgitate your argument in a different form.  Maybe you cut and pasted from the same place you got your argument.

In order for me to answer your question:  What exactly would the ruleset be?  

AND do you believe truth is based on fact or conjecture?


AND. Did they have a plane targeted between 903 and 937?


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Shockwave on April 19, 2012, 07:29:16 AM
Ill answer the question in the topic for you guys.

No.


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on April 19, 2012, 07:32:30 AM
Ill answer the question in the topic for you guys.

No.

Thanks for clearing that up.   ;)


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on April 19, 2012, 08:56:03 AM
All you did was regurgitate your argument in a different form.  Maybe you cut and pasted from the same place you got your argument.

In order for me to answer your question:  What exactly would the ruleset be?  

AND do you believe truth is based on fact or conjecture?

AND. Did they have a plane targeted between 903 and 937?

No, OzmO.  It was taken from a post I made on a recent page, and they are my own words.  It is something that you read only to the second or third sentence, at which point you felt compelled to blurt out that Rumsfeld wasn't the person to order planes to land.

The topic requires an attention span, so let's focus on just one point.  You have stated:

Quote
He knows when they get a hijacked plane identified and intercepted the decision can be made then.

The number one problem we were facing was a lack of time to react.  Beyond all the ways that time was working against us, were we to add further time to allow for contact between the President and the Secretary of Defense, after the need was to present itself?

That would increase the chance for further death.

Was this inconsistency due to incompetence, or...?


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on April 19, 2012, 08:59:14 AM
Ill answer the question in the topic for you guys.

No.

The choice of topic title requires us to assume that Rumsfeld knew a plane was on its way to Pentagon.

Needless to say, that places us on an uncertain path right from the beginning.


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on April 19, 2012, 11:45:52 AM
No, OzmO.  It was taken from a post I made on a recent page, and they are my own words.  It is something that you read only to the second or third sentence, at which point you felt compelled to blurt out that Rumsfeld wasn't the person to order planes to land.
The topic requires an attention span, so let's focus on just one point.  You have stated:
The number one problem we were facing was a lack of time to react.  Beyond all the ways that time was working against us, were we to add further time to allow for contact between the President and the Secretary of Defense, after the need was to present itself?That would increase the chance for further death.
Was this inconsistency due to incompetence, or...?


This what happens when I multi-multi task  :)

Meanwhile, You still haven't answered the questions I asked.  

Rule set?

Fact or conjecture?

Targets between 9:03 - 9:37?

Anytime you are ready.

(3rd request)


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on April 19, 2012, 04:56:07 PM
Foreign enemies that want control of the USA did this.  Not rummy.  Noone would do this to heir own people.   Noone.  It is the exact opposite. Look at who the power structure is that is diametrically opposed to the bush crowd.  They are rich white American business men.  They stand the most to lose by 9/11.  It is the enemies of this power structure that committed 9/11.  Now they own the presidency too.  For now.  I know the rich whiteys will save us.  Thanks Rumsfeld bush and Cheney, you guys did a great job!

 :-\


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on April 19, 2012, 05:19:05 PM
This what happens when I multi-multi task  :)

No.  This happens when you don't understand a subject, and deny all opportunities to learn about it.

Rule set?

None.  It is absolutely inconceivable that any preemptive ruleset could lower the probability for further death, not even for confirmed hijacks refusing to divert course from population centers.


Fact or conjecture?

Fact, of course.

Targets between 9:03 - 9:37?

None.  Not even the one at 0925.

I would like you to now focus on acknowledging the following:

Quote
He knows when they get a hijacked plane identified and intercepted the decision can be made then.

The number one problem we were facing was a lack of time to react.  Beyond all the ways that time was working against us, were we to add further time to allow for contact between the President and the Secretary of Defense, after the need was to present itself?

That increases the chance for further death.

Was this inconsistency due to incompetence, or...?


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on April 19, 2012, 07:26:35 PM
No.  This happens when you don't understand a subject, and deny all opportunities to learn about it.

I understand the subject extremely well, the difference between you and me is I don't validate conjecture and speculation.

Quote
None.  It is absolutely inconceivable that any preemptive ruleset could lower the probability for further death, not even for confirmed hijacks refusing to divert course from population centers.
So why are you asking me a question based on a rule-set?




Let me ask you directly, in your opinion, if it was incompetence that prevented such a ruleset from being placed into effect.

Exactly what ruleset are you talking about here?  Or was this a typo?


Quote
Fact, of course.

Then what facts support:  Rumfeld intended to thwart our defenses to allow the planeto hit and what facts support his actions or inaction caused it to happen?

Quote
None.  Not even the one at 0925.

If there were never any opportunities to shoot a plane down how is it that Rumsfeld is guilty of allowing a plane to hit pentagon?

Really Jack, can you make any kind of reasonable argument here?



Quote
I would like you to now focus on acknowledging the following:

The number one problem we were facing was a lack of time to react.  Beyond all the ways that time was working against us, were we to add further time to allow for contact between the President and the Secretary of Defense, after the need was to present itself?

That increases the chance for further death.

Was this inconsistency due to incompetence, or...?

Not neccessarily was time to react the number one problem.  I see it as a combination of quite few things that allowed the plane to hit the pentagon of which Rumfelds can not be tied to as it being his intention to allow the plane to hit the pentagon. One of the things that doesn't spurr contact between Rumsfeld and Bush in the minutes after 903 is Bush continues to read, no other threats reported.  there a few other possible explanations I could list like, not knowing what to do at the moment.  But point is, even them talking in the  minutes after 903 will still end up with the plane hitting.  So even if you prove intent which you can't, you still don't have a crime.

So to answer your question, I would call it unpreparedness, (which encompasses slowreaction time, lack of assets to repsond, lack of information, lack of protocols and lack of tracking/ radar) more than anything.

Which is what I have been saying all along.  


PS do you believe Bush needed to or was required to consult with Rumsfeld first in order to issue the order to shoot the plane down?



Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on April 19, 2012, 09:27:24 PM
You should know the law in this case by now.

Quote from: U.S. Department of Defense
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, I know you really dislike direct questioning.  But I need to establish a few things right away.

Do you understand that communication between the NCA would have immediately decreased the probability for further murder?


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on April 20, 2012, 07:54:48 AM
You should know the law in this case by now.

OzmO, I know you really dislike direct questioning.  But I need to establish a few things right away.

Do you understand that communication between the NCA would have immediately decreased the probability for further murder?

In this situation no.  

If you believe yes, tell me exactly how:
And how does not immediately communicating with the NCA from 903 to 937 figured as evidence of Rumsfeld being in on it?
(1st request)

Speaking of avoiding questions:

So why are you asking me a question based on a rule-set?
Exactly what ruleset are you talking about here?  Or was this a typo?
If there were never any opportunities to shoot a plane down how is it that Rumsfeld is guilty of allowing a plane to hit pentagon?
PS do you believe Bush needed to or was required to consult with Rumsfeld first in order to issue the order to shoot the plane down?

(2nd request)


PS  i don't readily fall into the trap of answering loaded questions that fall into the Logical fallacy category.  Ask better realistic truthful questions and i will answer them faster. Not question like for example: If Rumsfeld was intending to put himself in a position not to be able to be blamed for anything isn't his actions consistent with that?  

Also, Be willing to explain your question when i ask, such as this thing about the Ruleset instead of ignoring it.



Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on April 20, 2012, 09:40:03 AM
So you're saying you don't believe that a line of communication between the NCA, created during an attack by hijacked commercial airliners, would have decreased the probability for further death.

There is something pathological happening here, and it is out of my realm.

OzmO, as to the rest of your questions, I would ask that you read that particular post again, as it was a sarcastic attempt to jog your grasp of logic.


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on April 21, 2012, 09:04:12 AM
So you're saying you don't believe that a line of communication between the NCA, created during an attack by hijacked commercial airliners, would have decreased the probability for further death.

There is something pathological happening here, and it is out of my realm.

OzmO, as to the rest of your questions, I would ask that you read that particular post again, as it was a sarcastic attempt to jog your grasp of logic.

Nice way to avoid answering questions.  

If you don't think i am correct about communication with the NCA, instead of ridiculing my answer prove me wrong. Maybe even use facts, something you frequently don't use in your arguments.  You will find out just how   Uninformed you are about how our military/defense works and the ridiculousness of some of your arguments and how they, as most CT's, are mostly based on naive speculation, conjecture, loaded questions that use unproven premises as a integral component.  

Meanwhile:

If you believe yes, tell me exactly how:
And how does not immediately communicating with the NCA from 903 to 937 figured as evidence of Rumsfeld being in on it?
(2nd request)

So why are you asking me a question based on a rule-set?
Exactly what ruleset are you talking about here?  Or was this a typo?
If there were never any opportunities to shoot a plane down how is it that Rumsfeld is guilty of allowing a plane to hit pentagon?
PS do you believe Bush needed to or was required to consult with Rumsfeld first in order to issue the order to shoot the plane down?
(3rd request)

OzmO, I know you really dislike direct questioning.

lol





Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on April 21, 2012, 03:14:11 PM
This was an attack by hijacked commercial airliners.  If it was necessary to destroy such a vehicle, it would first require approval from the National Command Authority.

And airplanes move very quickly.

Are you with me so far?


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on April 21, 2012, 03:40:30 PM
This was an attack by hijacked commercial airliners.  If it was necessary to destroy such a vehicle, it would first require approval from the National Command Authority.

And airplanes move very quickly.

Are you with me so far?

Not completely correct.

I'll explain why after you answer my questions  because we are not going any further until you answer them.

If you believe yes, tell me exactly how:
And how does not immediately communicating with the NCA from 903 to 937 figured as evidence of Rumsfeld being in on it?

(3rd request)

So why are you asking me a question based on a rule-set?
Exactly what ruleset are you talking about here?  Or was this a typo?
If there were never any opportunities to shoot a plane down how is it that Rumsfeld is guilty of allowing a plane to hit pentagon?
PS do you believe Bush needed to or was required to consult with Rumsfeld first in order to issue the order to shoot the plane down?

(4th request)


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on April 21, 2012, 04:48:57 PM
OzmO, it is completely correct.

If you had planned to refer to the technical ability for NORAD to defend against an emergency, I would ask you to examine Arnold's comments to the 911 Commission, where he stated, that through calculated exercises, it became his absolute understanding that ANY shootdown would require the explicit direction of Donald Rumsfeld--"even for a derelict balloon."

It is another crack in the dam.

SO...if you are attempting to explain Rumsfeld's actions using this as a method, I would ask you how Rumsfeld could have possibly concluded--without communication--that Arnold was going to handle potential rules requests.


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on April 21, 2012, 05:59:22 PM
OzmO, it is completely correct.

If you had planned to refer to the technical ability for NORAD to defend against an emergency, I would ask you to examine Arnold's comments to the 911 Commission, where he stated, that through calculated exercises, it became his absolute understanding that ANY shootdown would require the explicit direction of Donald Rumsfeld--"even for a derelict balloon."

It is another crack in the dam.

SO...if you are attempting to explain Rumsfeld's actions using this as a method, I would ask you how Rumsfeld could have possibly concluded--without communication--that Arnold was going to handle potential rules requests.

Not completely correct.

I'll explain why after you answer my questions  because we are not going any further until you answer them.

If you believe yes, tell me exactly how:
And how does not immediately communicating with the NCA from 903 to 937 figured as evidence of Rumsfeld being in on it?
(4th request)

So why are you asking me a question based on a rule-set?
Exactly what ruleset are you talking about here?  Or was this a typo?
If there were never any opportunities to shoot a plane down how is it that Rumsfeld is guilty of allowing a plane to hit pentagon?
PS do you believe Bush needed to or was required to consult with Rumsfeld first in order to issue the order to shoot the plane down?
(5th request)


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on April 21, 2012, 08:13:25 PM
The questions result from a sarcastic post that you took literally.

I'll make a new thread, OzmO, and will try to descibe it in a way that is obvious to anyone.

Since I do not expect a person to start with an assumption that Rumsfeld was specifically aware of the Pentagon being a target, or that an overall knowledge of attack would be necessarily linked with such a specific awareness, I would like to separate the subject from that.  Maybe that will help you understand.


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on April 22, 2012, 07:24:32 AM
The questions result from a sarcastic post that you took literally.

I'll make a new thread, OzmO, and will try to descibe it in a way that is obvious to anyone.

Since I do not expect a person to start with an assumption that Rumsfeld was specifically aware of the Pentagon being a target, or that an overall knowledge of attack would be necessarily linked with such a specific awareness, I would like to separate the subject from that.  Maybe that will help you understand.

At least 4/6 questions I am asking are valid by themselves and relevant to your arguments.    Answer them directly.  Stop trying to run from them.

And if the questions about the "ruleset" are based on sarcasm from you explain why.

(6th request)


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on April 22, 2012, 05:46:18 PM
It makes me dizzy to keep up with this thread, OzmO.  I can't rely on what you'll remember from post to post, which makes it impossible to know where you're coming from at any particular time.

But I'm glad that you're no longer as misinformed as you once were:

Quote
Also, the reason I say lots of people in on the decision (to handle things in the way it was done), there is no way Bush and Runsfield were sitting there alone making it.  They were probably 20 or 30 poeple in the room connected to many many arms of government and military

You thought this, because it would be expected by any realistic person that such events would be met by a coordinated group effort, with communication as the primary concern.  It is a sensible expectation that any reasonable person would share.

But the opposite of our expectations took place, and this pattern would continue until the destruction had run its course.

Once again, I will tell you that these consistently opposite occurrences are not some back-to-back, compounded set of coincidences.  It would be straight ignorance, or a study in pathology, for a person to believe otherwise.

Problem is, most people are uninformed. And since it requires an attention span to become informed in such a case, we may be left with an epic story that goes largely unrecognized.

The accounting gets much uglier from here, so if a person cannot grasp the fundamentals, it is unlikely that he or she could benefit from further reasoning in this case.

Let me tell you this: The concept of staged events has only begun to get nasty in this information age.  Until democracy has been irreparably subverted, our privacy rights have been completely destroyed, and indefinite detention rights have been retained, we will continue to see such manipulation.  And by that point, it will be too late to fight.


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on April 22, 2012, 06:21:46 PM
It makes me dizzy to keep up with this thread, OzmO.  I can't rely on what you'll remember from post to post, which makes it impossible to know where you're coming from at any particular time.

But I'm glad that you're no longer as misinformed as you once were:

You thought this, because it would be expected by any realistic person that such events would be met by a coordinated group effort, with communication as the primary concern.  It is a sensible expectation that any reasonable person would share.

But the opposite of our expectations took place, and this pattern would continue until the destruction had run its course.

Once again, I will tell you that these consistently opposite occurrences are not some back-to-back, compounded set of coincidences.  It would be straight ignorance, or a study in pathology, for a person to believe otherwise.

Problem is, most people are uninformed. And since it requires an attention span to become informed in such a case, we may be left with an epic story that goes largely unrecognized.

The accounting gets much uglier from here, so if a person cannot grasp the fundamentals, it is unlikely that he or she could benefit from further reasoning in this case.

Let me tell you this: The concept of staged events has only begun to get nasty in this information age.  Until democracy has been irreparably subverted, our privacy rights have been completely destroyed, and indefinite detention rights have been retained, we will continue to see such manipulation.  And by that point, it will be too late to fight.

 ::)

So you brought up a something i was incorrect about at the beginning of this thread?

WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF JACK?

Why are you running from these questions?

If you believe yes, tell me exactly how.
And how does not immediately communicating with the NCA from 903 to 937 figured as evidence of Rumsfeld being in on it?
So why are you asking me a question based on a rule-set?
Exactly what rule-set are you talking about here?  Or was this a typo?
If there were never any opportunities to shoot a plane down how is it that Rumsfeld is guilty of allowing a plane to hit pentagon?
Do you believe Bush needed to or was required to consult with Rumsfeld first in order to issue the order to shoot the plane down?


(7th request)

Is your argument so weak you can't answer simple questions but instead have to misdirect, ignore, divert?


Or are you just afraid of the follow up questions?

(1st request)

This is a pattern with you.  You did it often earlier in the thread.  Time to man up Jack.  Answer the questions.

PS  sorry it has to get to this tone, but i have been more than patient with you, even to the extent of enduring your pot kettle hypocrisy when you accused me of not answering your questions.


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on April 24, 2012, 10:13:25 AM
For my own curiosity, OzmO, I'd like to find out a few things about your exact thoughts.

I would like to know whether you recognize that, as the murders at the Pentagon were taking place, that these murders would have been considered part of a crime in progress, and that this crime would have included the known destruction at the World Trade Center.


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on April 24, 2012, 07:15:25 PM
For my own curiousity, OzmO, I'd like to find out a few things about your exact thoughts.

I would like to know whether you recognize that, as the murders at the Pentagon were taking place, that these murders would have been considered part of a crime in progress, and that this crime would have included the known destruction at the World Trade Center.

 ::)

I am interested in having a 2 way conversation.  Not a one way cherry picking examination.

(8th request)

I will be more than happy to answer your questions after you answer mine.  
 (however, i am starting to believe you can't formulate a real argument)

If you believe yes, tell me exactly how.

And how does not immediately communicating with the NCA from 903 to 937 figured as evidence of Rumsfeld being in on it?

So why are you asking me a question based on a rule-set?

Exactly what rule-set are you talking about here?  Or was this a typo?

If there were never any opportunities to shoot a plane down how is it that Rumsfeld is guilty of allowing a plane to hit pentagon?

Do you believe Bush needed to or was required to consult with Rumsfeld first in order to issue the order to shoot the plane down?










Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on April 24, 2012, 08:55:47 PM
You are unaware of the most basic facts of this case, including the function of the National Command Authority, and your questions show that.


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on April 24, 2012, 09:03:02 PM
You are unaware of the most basic facts of this case, including the function of the National Command Authority, and your questions show that.

 ::)

If that's the case the questions should be easily answered.  

As well as the follow up questions.  

Sad Jack, thought you were better than this. 





Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on April 25, 2012, 01:11:43 PM
OzmO, to 'answer' the questions you've listed would be to explain the purpose of the National Command Authority in this case, for the twentieth time, at which point you would ignore it for the twentieth time. 

You MUST let the facts sink in if you're going to be honest with yourself.  Please do not behave as a person who would fool himself in the face of innocent death.

If you want, we can look at this more closely...

Quote
If there were never any opportunities to shoot a plane down how is it that Rumsfeld is guilty of allowing a plane to hit pentagon?

This points directly to the question of what actions or orders could have been generated at approximately 0903, the time at which it became obvious there was an attack.

I would like to know whether you maintain that there weren't any conceivable orders or actions that could have been associated with anything other than a tracked and verified threat.


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on April 26, 2012, 10:46:43 PM
Anything at all.  Preemptive rules for confirmed hijacks that would refuse warning shots, patrol orders for a specific airspace, a waived presumption for NORAD to contact Rumsfeld for a necessary engagement, etc.

We are talking about any action or order, that would not have been associated with a tracked and verified threat.


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on April 27, 2012, 08:44:46 AM
I am more than happy to answer any and all your questions when you answer mine.

(for the millionth time  ::))

Stop the bull shit about facts and being honest with your self.  Don't play CTer games here like trying to argue a point from the authority of knowing better.  SHOW ME.  ANSWER DIRECTLY. 

If you want honesty look in the mirror and answer the questions..


example:

Question:   If there were never any opportunities to shoot a plane down how is it that Rumsfeld is guilty of allowing a plane to hit pentagon?

Answer:  Because Rumsfeld ________________________ ________________  (fill in blank)



Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on May 04, 2012, 08:17:57 AM
Don't play CTer games here like trying to argue a point from the authority of knowing better.

If a person understands and accepts the facts in a case, another person cannot speak with authority over him.

If there were never any opportunities to shoot a plane down how is it that Rumsfeld is guilty of allowing a plane to hit pentagon?

Please view the facts as whole.

There weren't any orders generated until more than an hour after it became an obvious attack, as the two members of the NCA chose--independently, no less--during an attack by hijacked commercial airliners, not to communicate.  (Once again providing an 'opposite of expected' event that a person would otherwise have to place onto his long list of coincidences.)

So beyond the fact that 'if' is completely unanswerable, it is also irrelevant.  Since we can safely assume that Rumsfeld did not have a psychic reading into the future, his actions cannot be explained or excused by any such concept.


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on May 04, 2012, 08:53:55 AM
So basically you can't show that Rumdfeld is guilty of allowing a plane to hit the pentagon.

1 down 5 to go.


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on May 04, 2012, 09:59:48 AM
So basically you can't show that Rumdfeld is guilty of allowing a plane to hit the pentagon.

Am I to assume he knew a plane was on its way to the Pentagon, or that destruction was due to occur at the Pentagon?

If so, why?

And if I am to assume he knew that destruction was due to occur at the Pentagon, how about the timing?  Am I to assume he would know the timing of such an event?

I cannot see how to reasonably assume such things.

Please tell me how I can reasonably assume such things.


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on May 04, 2012, 11:14:21 AM
Am I to assume he knew a plane was on its way to the Pentagon, or that destruction was due to occur at the Pentagon?
If so, why?
And if I am to assume he knew that destruction was due to occur at the Pentagon, how about the timing?  Am I to assume he would know the timing of such an event?
We have already established the fact that no one knew there was even another plane hijacked from 9:03 to about 9:25 or so.

Go back to the title of the thread:  Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?

So far, you haven't shown he thwarted our defenses to allow the plane to hit the pentagon.

I am still waiting for you to do so.

In the mean time......

1 down 5 to go.


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on May 04, 2012, 11:56:25 AM

Must we strictly limit our reasoning to conform to the thread title you decided upon, OzmO?

If I am to assume he knew that destruction was due to occur at the Pentagon, how about the timing?  Am I to assume he would know the timing of such an event?

I cannot see how to reasonably assume such things.

Please tell me how I can reasonably assume such things.

OzmO, I cannot reasonably assume such things.

The only items I can reasonably assume he knew, starting at 0903, were that airplanes were being flown into buildings, with more airplanes in the sky, some perhaps to be used in the same way.

It is inescapable, friend.


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on May 04, 2012, 12:41:31 PM

Must we strictly limit our reasoning conform to the thread title you decided upon, OzmO?

That's the point of the thread.  I am asking if you can prove Rumsfeld deliberately thwarted our defenses to allow a plane to hit the pentaagon and so far you have not proved it.

What do you think you have proved?

(if you want to discuss something else or another aspect of it feel free to start another thread)
Quote

The only items I can reasonably assume he knew, starting at 0903, were that airplanes were being flown into buildings, with more airplanes in the sky, some perhaps to be used in the same way.

It is inescapable, friend.

How does that prove Rumsfeld deliberately allowed a plane to hit the pentagon?

Not that you have a habit of answering questions, because you don't, in fact you run from them, so here's some another questions:

Do you believe Rumsfeld, ordered all the radars and tracking systems to be shut down at 9:03?

Do you believe our defenses were ordered to stand down?

Do you believe the civilian ATC were told to stop monitoring planes?

Well?



Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on May 05, 2012, 08:07:56 AM
Do you believe Rumsfeld, ordered all the radars and tracking systems to be shut down at 9:03?

Do you believe our defenses were ordered to stand down?

Do you believe the civilian ATC were told to stop monitoring planes?

Well?

OzmO, these things would direct responsibility for the attack toward the giver of such orders.

If you would stop to think about it for even a half second, you would understand this.


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Shockwave on May 05, 2012, 03:02:19 PM
Again, let me help.
The answer, is no. He did not.  ;)


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on May 05, 2012, 05:33:50 PM
OzmO, these things would direct responsibility for the attack toward the giver of such orders.

If you would stop to think about it for even a half second, you would understand this.

If you would stop and do some research about how the military works OR answer the questions i have been asking, you would see how ignorant/naive your argument is here.


So I take it you have surrendered to the fact that you cannot Prove Rumsfeld intentially thwarted our defenses to allow a plane to hit it?

Perhaps you should start a thread like:  Rumsfeld and Bush didn't communicate at 904 and therefore it was an inside job.  (or something like that). But you have ZERO case here on this thread and you run from questions.




Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on May 06, 2012, 04:45:38 PM
So you've dropped specific mention of the Pentagon, and you've changed 'the plane' to 'a plane', but I see you couldn't resist coming back to put an 'it' on the end of the sentence.

Please understand.  We must lose any ideas regarding what specific knowledge Rumsfeld could have had, unless it can be reasonably assumed that he had such knowledge.

At 0903, we can reasonably assume that he knows the following:

*Airplanes were--or are--being flown into buildings, killing perhaps hundreds of innocent citizens.

*More airplanes are in motion, presenting very fast-moving potentiality for further death.

Once again, we cannot reasonably assume anything further about specific knowledge he had.


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on May 06, 2012, 05:10:14 PM
So you've dropped specific mention of the Pentagon, and you've changed 'the plane' to 'a plane' but I see you couldn't resist coming back to put an 'it' on the end of the sentence.

Jack everything is NOT a conspiracy.   ::)  You know what i meant, stop playing games.

Quote
Please understand.  We must lose any ideas regarding what specific knowledge Rumsfeld could have had, unless it can be reasonably assumed that he had such knowledge.

The only thing you have to do is prove Rumsfeld intentionally thwarted our defenses to allow THE PLANE to hit THE PENTAGON.

So far you have done nothing but deflect and run away from questions
Quote
At 0903, we can reasonably assume that he knows the following:

*Airplanes were--or are--being flown into buildings, killing perhaps hundreds of innocent citizens.

*More airplanes are in motion, presenting very fast-moving potentiality for further death.

Once again, we cannot reasonably assume anything further about specific knowledge he had.

Not completely correct.

We knew/didn't know this at 9:03 (nothing assumed here):

-  Knew:2 planes hit the WTC's
-  Didn't know:  We were still under attack or the attack was over
-  Knew: No other planes were identified ATM
-  Didn't fully know (in other words at 9:03 info about the first impact was still being learned by members of the FAA and military and the units and departments with in) were the planes came from, flight number etc.
-  Know:  Our defenses maintained their readiness with-in what they were able to do, radar tracking systems were operational, civilian radar installations were operational, NORAD was operational ETC ETC ETC.


So you are either going to continue to play your little games or you are going to pony up and show how Rumsfled intentionally let THE PLANE hit THE PENTAGON.

what's it going to be?





Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on May 07, 2012, 10:18:00 AM
Jack everything is NOT a conspiracy.   ::)  You know what i meant, stop playing games.

It is very interesting to watch.  I'm beginning to wonder if it is your subconscious.

We knew/didn't know this at 9:03 (nothing assumed here):

-  Knew:2 planes hit the WTC's

Check.

-  Didn't know:  We were still under attack or the attack was over

Check.  In other words, at that very moment, and for every succeeding moment throughout, as all planes were being ordered to land, any plane could be at any stage of an aggressive movement.  This cannot be misunderstood under any circumstance.

-  Knew: No other planes were identified ATM

Please provide any evidence to show he sought or received such information.

-  Didn't fully know (in other words at 9:03 info about the first impact was still being learned by members of the FAA and military and the units and departments with in) were the planes came from, flight number etc.

Not sure what you're getting at.  Are you saying he didn't associate the events with an attack?  Because his own words will show otherwise.

-  Know:  Our defenses maintained their readiness with-in what they were able to do, radar tracking systems were operational, civilian radar installations were operational, NORAD was operational ETC ETC ETC.

Let's concentrate on this for a moment.

We are talking specifically about what they were able to do with respect to commercial airliners, the vehicles that were providing a method for the attack that was occuring at that very moment.

There wasn't any doubt about the law, as drills had made perfectly clear, including to the highest authority within NORAD, that the direction of Donald Rumsfeld would be required for ANY ruleset that would include an ability to destroy within its flowchart--'even for a derelict balloon'.

This was another tool that was absolutely required for the job.  Because it was required, it exists.  Because it exists, we can examine it.


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on May 07, 2012, 11:41:37 AM
It is very interesting to watch.  I'm beginning to wonder if it is your subconscious.

I wonder the same thing when it comes to you avoiding questions lol, but i usually come to conclusion you just fear reality.  


Quote
Check.

Check.  In other words, at that very moment, and for every succeeding moment throughout, as all planes were being ordered to land, any plane could be at any stage of an aggressive movement.  This cannot be misunderstood under any circumstance.

I agree somewhat but I don't completely agree.  It wasn't a certainty at the moment.  Other possibilities existed.  

Quote
Please provide any evidence to show he sought or received such information.

No need to too, its moot in the context of Rumsfeld intentionally allowing      a plane      to      hit it,        because he's not, nor was ever the field commander, Larry Arnold was.

Quote
Not sure what you're getting at.  Are you saying he didn't associate the events with an attack?  Because his own words will show otherwise.

No what i am saying is, what i wrote is some of what parts of the government knew at 903.  You base most of arguments on after the fact conclusions thinking everyone knew everything at 903 which has been implanted in your subconscious to point that now its reality to you.  

Quote
Let's concentrate on this for a moment.

No lets not.  You still have some questions to answer.

So basically you can't show that Rumdfeld is guilty of allowing a plane to hit the pentagon.

1 down 5 to go.


If you believe yes, tell me exactly how.

And how does not immediately communicating with the NCA from 903 to 937 figured as evidence of Rumsfeld being in on it?

So why are you asking me a question based on a rule-set?

Exactly what rule-set are you talking about here?  Or was this a typo?

If there were never any opportunities to shoot a plane down how is it that Rumsfeld is guilty of allowing a plane to hit pentagon?  Answered:  Jack cannot show it

Do you believe Bush needed to or was required to consult with Rumsfeld first in order to issue the order to shoot the plane down?
________________________ ________________________ ______________________
Quote
We are talking specifically about what they were able to do with respect to commercial airliners, the vehicles that were providing a method for the attack that was occuring at that very moment.

There wasn't any doubt about the law, as drills had made perfectly clear, including to the highest authority within NORAD, that the direction of Donald Rumsfeld would be required for ANY ruleset that would include an ability to destroy within its flowchart--'even for a derelict balloon'.

This was another tool that was absolutely required for the job.  Because it was required, it exists.  Because it exists, we can examine it.

For the most part completely incorrect and for the most part completely ignorant on your part.    

PS:  I would love to show you why.

PPSS:  there's the word rule-set again, are you being sarcastic again Jack and therefore won't take responsibility for your comments?



Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on May 08, 2012, 11:51:19 AM
For the most part completely incorrect and for the most part completely ignorant on your part.    

It is completely true, correct, and not ignorant, friend.

PS:  I would love to show you why.

So would many people.  But for all the geniuses on this board, who would otherwise ignorantly attempt to degrade a person for having such beliefs, not a single one has been able to stand against it.

And so far we have examined only one person in this story.


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on May 08, 2012, 04:56:00 PM
It is completely true, correct, and not ignorant, friend.

So would many people.  But for all the geniuses on this board, who would otherwise ignorantly attempt to degrade a person for having such beliefs, not a single one has been able to stand against it.

And so far we have examined only one person in this story.

Sorry, but your argument is false and incorrect.

When you have the courage to answer my questions i will happily show you why.

The funniest part about this, is you won't even define the "magical rule set".

The second funniest part, is you don't really want to know why its false and incorrect.

The third funniest part is now you are trying to play the victim.

Its not about beliefs Jack.  It's about facts.  Your facts (your assertions or what you claim to be facts) are mostly incorrect, and you most of your arguments are based on unproven premises.

Its like you are closing your eyes and saying NO NO don't show me why because it will conflict with my beliefs, beliefs which are incorrect and based on unproven premises.

This right here:

Quote
We are talking specifically about what they were able to do with respect to commercial airliners, the vehicles that were providing a method for the attack that was occuring at that very moment.

There wasn't any doubt about the law, as drills had made perfectly clear, including to the highest authority within NORAD, that the direction of Donald Rumsfeld would be required for ANY ruleset that would include an ability to destroy within its flowchart--'even for a derelict balloon'.

This was another tool that was absolutely required for the job.  Because it was required, it exists.  Because it exists, we can examine it.

Is so far off base and untrue its unbelievable!  Cherry picking at its finest!

I think, if i remember it right, I even told you a few times when we first talked and you, like most times, ran away or ignored it.

It doesn't take a genius to see it either.   ;)

Sorry i Just keep on finding funny stuff about your whole argument....

It seems like the foundation of your argument here is that because a ruleset wasn't established immediately after 903 by Rumsfeld it shows he is guilty of being in on this conspiracy.  And you won't even define this magical ruleset, one that, if established on the fly wouldn't change a dam thing and one that would have most possibility resulted in an accidental shoot down AND you refuse to answer any questions regarding your arguments.

Pure comedy dude.  Even genesis would be ROTF!


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on May 08, 2012, 06:02:39 PM
The funniest part about this, is you won't even define the "magical rule set".

How about this...

Permission to engage population-bound, improperly triangulated, confirmed hijacks that refuse warning shots.

If that's not safe enough for you, we can refine it to wherever you feel comfortable.  Just let me know.

And if you are unwilling to believe that any preemptive clearance should be given by Donald Rumsfeld, as you feel his keen tactical input -- 'as an administrator and not a field commander' -- must be given in such a situation only as it arises, then we will simply maintain an open line of communication to field and expedite potential requests


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on May 08, 2012, 07:03:27 PM
How about this...

Permission to engage population-bound, improperly triangulated, confirmed hijacks that refuse warning shots.

If that's not safe enough for you, we can refine it to wherever you feel comfortable.  Just let me know.

And if you are unwilling to believe that any preemptive clearance should be given by Donald Rumsfeld -- as you feel his keen tactical input 'as an administrator and not a field commander' -- must be given in such a situation only as it arises, then we will simply maintain an open line of communication to field and expedite potential requests.
Congratulations Jack!

You answered 2/6 of the questions i have repeatedly asked you!  (don't expect me to go much further on this until you have answered all 6 and be prepared to answer the follow up questions before we go even further  ;))



What if the radio has been disabled, the pilots killed, but the hijackers subdued?

What if 2 or more planes are in the same area but in a dark zone?

What if the pilot refuses to shoot because he hadn't been trained previously to follow that type of order?

What if the plane is flying over a densely populated area that could result in more death after it's shot out of the sky?

What if the passengers are in the process of subduing the hijackers?

What if there is a problem confirming the plane is in fact hijacked?

What constitutes a confirmed hijack?


It should be noted, i am not in the military and never have been nor am i a pilot............  meaning i bet a fighter pilot could come up with some more "questions"

And you expect this to be worked out immediately at 903 and because it wasn't its a smoking gun to a conspiracy............as if you "know their (everyone from Rumsfeld to fighter pilots) jobs better then they do"

PURE COMEDY  ;D



 


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on May 08, 2012, 08:52:36 PM
Quote
And if you are unwilling to believe that any preemptive clearance should be given by Donald Rumsfeld, as you feel his keen tactical input -- 'as an administrator and not a field commander' -- must be given in such a situation only as it arises, then we will simply maintain an open line of communication to field and expedite potential requests.


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on May 08, 2012, 09:50:31 PM


And if you are unwilling to believe that any preemptive clearance should be given by Donald Rumsfeld -- as you feel his keen tactical input 'as an administrator and not a field commander' -- must be given in such a situation only as it arises, then we will simply maintain an open line of communication to field and expedite potential requests.
Still so terribly incorrect.

I take it these questions rule out the magical rule set then?   :)



What if the radio has been disabled, the pilots killed, but the hijackers subdued?

What if 2 or more planes are in the same area but in a dark zone?

What if the pilot refuses to shoot because he hadn't been trained previously to follow that type of order?

What if the plane is flying over a densely populated area that could result in more death after it's shot out of the sky?

What if the passengers are in the process of subduing the hijackers?

What if there is a problem confirming the plane is in fact hijacked?

What constitutes a confirmed hijack?




So you failed already in 2 of my 6 questions to you.  I am seeing now why you didn't want to answer them.  

But  sorry you will need to answer the rest of them and i will more than happy to explain why in detail you are so incorrect.

4 more to go!

Love your pattern:  Each time you get debunked you just role over to another angle.  lol

Its funny most of you argument is based on this ruleset, so now it's about Rumsfeld being available for an open line of communication.  Is that it now?  Is that the smoking gun?

What are you gonna switch to when that one gets debunked?


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

Still smiling about this...So that's it now isn't it? Rumsfeld is guilty of being part of a conspiracy because you think he wasn't available for an open line of communication that was never needed.

Right?



Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on May 09, 2012, 11:26:43 AM
OzmO, you aren't reading and processing the information you are trying to argue against, which really cheapens a conversation.

Beyond all other inconsistencies, you are once again attempting to argue that it was inconceivable any actions or orders could have been generated at approximately 0903, and you are attempting to argue that Donald Rumsfeld came to such a conclusion without executive or military communication.


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on May 10, 2012, 08:46:48 AM
OzmO, you aren't reading and processing the information you are trying to argue against, which really cheapens a conversation.

Beyond all other inconsistencies, you are once again attempting to argue that it was inconceivable any actions or orders could have been generated at approximately 0903, and you are attempting to argue that Donald Rumsfeld came to such a conclusion without executive or military communication.

You are missing the boat again. 

I am not arguing that there were or were not any actions that could have been generated at 903.  I am simply saying that that our government was doing what it was trained to do at every level and that there is NOTHING in the way of REAL evidence to indicate that Rumsfeld is guilty of thwarting our defenses to allow THE PLANE to hit THE PENTAGON.

Further more EVERY attempt by you to show other wise has failed miserably and has been soundly debunked.

You refuse to answer questions of your arguments and you refuse to respond to my debunking and crushing of your arguments.

You got anything else?  Or are you left with only attacking my approach to things?


Now the funny part:  When I expose these "any actions or orders could have been generated at approximately 0903" that you suggest as pure ignorance, impracticality and nativity, you refuse to acknowledge it and just ignore it.



Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on May 10, 2012, 02:25:54 PM
Now the funny part:  When I expose these "any actions or orders could have been generated at approximately 0903" that you suggest as pure ignorance, impracticality and nativity, you refuse to acknowledge it and just ignore it.

I'm not sure what you mean to say here.


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on May 11, 2012, 07:05:22 AM
I'm not sure what you mean to say here.

In other words, when I show you the nativity of your rule set arguement you don't address it, when I tell you, you are completely incorrect you don't simply answer the questions I have been asking you over and over so you can get my explanation of why you are incorrect and just as you did in the past you ignore it and move on to another angle. 

Facts:  your argument about the rule set is dead

Facts:  your argument about Rumsfeld being available for open communication is incorrect. 

Facts: the other Arguments or assertioins in the last few posts that I called incorrect are still incorrect.

Facts:  you have not shown any evidence to link Rumsfeld with a conspiracy indicating that he deleberatley thwarted our defenses to allow the plane to hit the pentagon

Facts: you have digressed into basic CT'er tactics by suggesting silly shit like "a plane" and "it" as some subconscious thing about my beliefs.

Facts:  you make statements about things and when I ask questions abut them you run from them or try to claim your weren't  serious and you were just being sarcastic, like with the rule set thing but then later bring up the ruleset in an  argument. 

"if" this is the argument you have been refining, I am sorry, but it's only going to work on idiots. 


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on May 11, 2012, 05:52:56 PM
Quote
Now the funny part:  When I expose these "any actions or orders could have been generated at approximately 0903" that you suggest as pure ignorance, impracticality and nativity, you refuse to acknowledge it and just ignore it.

Quote
In other words, when I show you the nativity of your rule set arguement you don't address it, when I tell you, you are completely incorrect you don't simply answer the questions I have been asking you over and over so you can get my explanation of why you are incorrect and just as you did in the past you ignore it and move on to another angle.

I want to know what you're trying to get at here.



Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on May 11, 2012, 07:25:47 PM
I want to know what you're trying to get at here.



Let me ask you directly, in your opinion, if it was incompetence that prevented such a ruleset from being placed into effect.

Here's where you brought up RULESET


BTW what rule-set are you talking about exactly? (explain the rule set in detail because chances are, your ruleset is unrealistic)

Also, i will answer your question directly upon clarification of  the ruleset, AND when you answer mine plus  the one on this post.

I was so right lol


In order for me to answer your question:  What exactly would the ruleset be?  



Meanwhile, You still haven't answered the questions I asked.  

Rule set?

(3rd request)


None.  It is absolutely inconceivable that any preemptive ruleset could lower the probability for further death, not even for confirmed hijacks refusing to divert course from population centers.


I guess this is where you are claiming to be "sarcastic"  instead of just answering the DAM question which i have asked 3 times at this point.   ::)


 So why are you asking me a question based on a rule-set?

Exactly what ruleset are you talking about here?  Or was this a typo?


Still avoiding the question.


So why are you asking me a question based on a rule-set?
Exactly what ruleset are you talking about here?  Or was this a typo?


And still avoiding the question....


OzmO, as to the rest of your questions, I would ask that you read that particular post again, as it was a sarcastic attempt to jog your grasp of logic.

Still avoiding the question like a very rude person.  (normally i would say rude MF'er  :))

the above was from page 11 only  lol


So why are you asking me a question based on a rule-set?
Exactly what ruleset are you talking about here?  Or was this a typo?



So why are you asking me a question based on a rule-set?
Exactly what ruleset are you talking about here?  Or was this a typo?


And still yet again avoiding it.



So why are you asking me a question based on a rule-set?
Exactly what ruleset are you talking about here?  Or was this a typo?


See a pattern here?  lol

The questions result from a sarcastic post that you took literally.

What a matter with you?  you can't read?  and then you have the nerve to accuse me of skimming over your garbage?  You can't even answer a simple question I had been asking over and over and over and over and over and over and over ?


And if the questions about the "ruleset" are based on sarcasm from you explain why.


Still can't man up.


So why are you asking me a question based on a rule-set?
Exactly what rule-set are you talking about here?  Or was this a typo?


Again.....


So why are you asking me a question based on a rule-set?

Exactly what rule-set are you talking about here?  Or was this a typo?


And over and over.....

You are unaware of the most basic facts of this case, including the function of the National Command Authority, and your questions show that.

Still can't answer.....  instead you try and deflect.

::)

If that's the case the questions should be easily answered.  

As well as the follow up questions.  

Sad Jack, thought you were better than this.  


still avoiding them....

How about this...

Permission to engage population-bound, improperly triangulated, confirmed hijacks that refuse warning shots.

If that's not safe enough for you, we can refine it to wherever you feel comfortable.  Just let me know.

And if you are unwilling to believe that any preemptive clearance should be given by Donald Rumsfeld, as you feel his keen tactical input -- 'as an administrator and not a field commander' -- must be given in such a situation only as it arises, then we will simply maintain an open line of communication to field and expedite potential requests

so finally on page fucking 13 you define your stupid rule set i expose for what it is:


What if the radio has been disabled, the pilots killed, but the hijackers subdued?

What if 2 or more planes are in the same area but in a dark zone?

What if the pilot refuses to shoot because he hadn't been trained previously to follow that type of order?

What if the plane is flying over a densely populated area that could result in more death after it's shot out of the sky?

What if the passengers are in the process of subduing the hijackers?

What if there is a problem confirming the plane is in fact hijacked?

What constitutes a confirmed hijack?


So what to you do?  What you normally do  RUN to anther angle instead of manning up and address my response:

by posting this:

Quote
And if you are unwilling to believe that any preemptive clearance should be given by Donald Rumsfeld, as you feel his keen tactical input -- 'as an administrator and not a field commander' -- must be given in such a situation only as it arises, then we will simply maintain an open line of communication to field and expedite potential requests.

Look at how many times I asked you to define the rule-set Jack!  10?  12?....................13 fucking times!

You are being one weak ass piece of shit.  You are being dishonest.   If you can't continue in a reasonable manner I am through with you.  

PS:  You know what i fucking meant when i said:

Now the funny part:  When I expose these "any actions or orders could have been generated at approximately 0903" that you suggest as pure ignorance, impracticality and nativity, you refuse to acknowledge it and just ignore it.

Quote
In other words, when I show you the nativity of your rule set arguement you don't address it, when I tell you, you are completely incorrect you don't simply answer the questions I have been asking you over and over so you can get my explanation of why you are incorrect and just as you did in the past you ignore it and move on to another angle.











Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on May 11, 2012, 10:10:32 PM
OzmO.  When you say nativity...is that what you're trying to say?


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on May 12, 2012, 09:10:55 AM
OzmO.  When you say nativity...is that what you're trying to say?
::)
Ask me another 13 times and I will consider answering.


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on May 12, 2012, 06:07:06 PM
OzmO, defining rulesets that didn't take place is nothing more than a trip into the unknown.  That's all it can ever be.


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on May 12, 2012, 06:33:23 PM
OzmO, defining rulesets that never took place is nothing more than a trip into the unknown.  That's all it can ever be.


 ::)

Yet......

Quote
Let me ask you directly, in your opinion, if it was incompetence that prevented such a ruleset from being placed into effect.

It was important enough for you to use as part of your argument.  Now that you have been shown your ignorance you are back peddling lol

Ha Ha Lame. 

Do you really want me to dig up all your arguments about the rulesets from the first time around and embarrass you more?

Consider your answer carefully, or go back and try and remove them all  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH



Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on May 12, 2012, 07:03:59 PM
We cannot define a ruleset that didn't take place, we can only agree that a ruleset would have been fully possible and expected.

Quote
I am not arguing that there were or were not any actions that could have been generated at 903.

So we once again have to ask why this would be true.  We must ask why Donald Rumsfeld would commit himself to actions that would increase the chance for further death, while avoiding actions that would decrease the chance for death.

Was it incompetence, or...?


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on May 12, 2012, 08:47:02 PM
We cannot define a ruleset that didn't take place, we can only agree that a ruleset would have been fully possible and expected.

So we once again have to ask why this would be true.  We must ask why Donald Rumsfeld would commit himself to actions that would increase the chance for further death, while avoiding actions that would decrease the chance for death.

Was it incompetence, or...?

Wrong again.


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on May 12, 2012, 10:02:14 PM
We can't focus on imaginary orders and communication.


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on May 13, 2012, 06:59:07 AM
We can't focus on imaginary orders and communication.

Yet you use those as part of your argument.   ::)


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on May 13, 2012, 06:37:17 PM
OzmO, it is the lack of such that is the argument.


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on May 13, 2012, 06:57:40 PM
OzmO, it is the lack of such that is the argument.

You can't argue a lack of something if you aren't willing or able to define and detail it and use the definition and detail to prove it would be the prudent and proper thing to do in the context of the issue.....something you have failed to do over and over.

 Also this argument of yours would have to with stand to questioning something that has shown you to be a coward.

So if this is the extent of your argument, I have misjudged you.

Jack, seriously, I am not just trying to insult you here, honestly are you in middle school?  because that is the level of your argument.  Beucase it translates to this:

"I am right and you can not ask any thing about it unless those questions support my argument and I also have the right change my story/angle anytime I want
"


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on May 13, 2012, 09:38:00 PM
We must use ONLY what can reasonably be known, and not drift from that.


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on May 14, 2012, 07:49:45 AM
We must use ONLY what can reasonably be known, and not drift from that.

 ::)


I have misjudged you.

Jack, seriously, I am not just trying to insult you here, honestly are you in middle school?  because that is the level of your argument.  Beucase it translates to this:

"I am right and you can not ask any thing about it unless those questions support my argument and I also have the right change my story/angle anytime I want
"


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on May 14, 2012, 09:17:23 AM
OzmO, the truth cannot be pursued while departed from what can be reasonably known.  It can't be done.


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on May 14, 2012, 09:27:51 AM
OzmO, the truth cannot be pursued while departed from what can be reasonably known.  It can't be done.

 ::)
Yet you use what "should have" been done or lack of  in your argument even though its unrealistic. 


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on May 14, 2012, 10:47:31 AM
::)
Yet you use what "should have" been done or lack of  in your argument even though its unrealistic. 

What is?  The concept of initiating any order or any action under such circumstance?


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on May 14, 2012, 11:37:36 AM
What is?  The concept of initiating any order or any action under such circumstance?

So far, your suggestions as to what should have or what there as a lack of have been unrealistic, naive and ignorant.  Which is well highlighted in your fear and unwillingness to answer questions about them.

Do you believe everyone was just standing around waiting for Rumsfeld to order something?


I have misjudged you.

Jack, seriously, I am not just trying to insult you here, honestly are you in middle school?  because that is the level of your argument.  Beucase it translates to this:

"I am right and you can not ask any thing about it unless those questions support my argument and I also have the right change my story/angle anytime I want"


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on May 14, 2012, 01:47:40 PM
Do you believe everyone was just standing around waiting for Rumsfeld to order something?

I know that Rumsfeld personally instructed his assistants to wait for him in the Crisis Management room, where he did not appear until approximately one hour later, after the destruction had taken place.


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on May 14, 2012, 01:55:41 PM
I know that Rumsfeld personally instructed his assistants to wait for him in the Crisis Management room, where he did not appear until approximately one hour later, after the destruction had taken place.

Do you believe that if his 2 assistants were waiting for him, (on his instructions), that everyone else also was waiting for him to issue orders and therefore were doing nothing?


(Geez, your ignorance sure shows)


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on May 14, 2012, 04:51:56 PM
Do you believe that if his 2 assistants were waiting for him, (on his instructions), that everyone else also was waiting for him to issue orders and therefore were doing nothing?

So you claim 'everyone else' behaved in a manner that would be expected, except Donald Rumsfeld.

What should this tell me?


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on May 14, 2012, 05:14:55 PM
So you claim 'everyone else' behaved in a manner that would be expected, except Donald Rumsfeld.

Nope.

Quote
What should this tell me?

Maybe you shouldn't be so quick to conclude.

(Geez, your ignorance sure shows)


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: The Abdominal Snoman on May 14, 2012, 10:59:26 PM
A lot of COINTELPRO techniques being used in this thread :-\


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on June 16, 2012, 12:40:36 PM
A lot of COINTELPRO techniques being used in this thread :-\

I've done some looking since you posted this, Snoman.  It's enough to make an awake person wonder.

If you could find it in yourself to post some examples from this thread, it would provide a great read.


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on June 16, 2012, 12:42:19 PM
Again, let me help.
The answer, is no. He did not.  ;)

Was sure I'd responded to this, Shockwave, but can't find any follow-up here.

I would really like to know your thoughts on the subject.

 ???


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on June 21, 2012, 08:11:27 PM
If he did...

If you're talking to me, syntaxmachine, I would ask you to please be more specific.


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on June 23, 2012, 07:51:35 PM
Please become at least passingly familiar with the discussion itself, including the opposition to the thread title, which you should know was changed mid-conversation.


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon
Post by: Jack T. Cross on June 24, 2012, 01:09:39 AM
No, I will not read 14 pages of posts

Then I wouldn't know what to say to a person who would be so uninterested.

Maybe someday you will become interested, or really bored, and everything will change.

, especially since it is exceedingly obvious what I'm driving at despite my not having done so. Let me reformulate my previous post so that its larger point cannot be dodged by any further obstructionism: "If your favored theory regarding what happened on 9/11 were correct, what would you do about it?"

Do you see the problem with this approach?


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on June 24, 2012, 07:12:00 PM
Please become at least passingly familiar with the discussion itself, including the opposition to the thread title, which you should know was changed mid-conversation.

Lol how is that?


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on June 25, 2012, 08:40:04 PM
Lol how is that?

Not sure what 'that' you mean.


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon
Post by: Jack T. Cross on June 25, 2012, 08:41:33 PM
The question remains: what will you do if your theory about Rumsfeld's behavior - with its rather serious implications and all - ends up being correct?

It is correct.

If you would like to indicate doubt, please tell me how to reasonably assume otherwise.  


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on June 26, 2012, 11:43:03 AM
Not sure what 'that' you mean.



Quote
Please become at least passingly familiar with the discussion itself, including the opposition to the thread title, which you should know was changed mid-conversation.

How was opposition to the thread title changed mid conversation?


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon
Post by: OzmO on June 26, 2012, 02:48:22 PM
Lol, this guy is on a different wavelength than us, and I don't think he is acting like this just to troll. His reading comprehension is shot or otherwise  he will ignore half the points you make and focus on a single phrase you say. It's liike talking with a malfunctioning robot, or rather, getting talked at by a malfunctioning robot (since it doesn't recognize anything you say)!


Yeah, that's pretty much the way it is with him.  I guess you read some of the pages.   :)


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on June 26, 2012, 04:20:59 PM
How was opposition to the thread title changed mid conversation?

Ozmo, it is the thread title that was changed.


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon
Post by: Jack T. Cross on June 26, 2012, 04:23:12 PM

So...while claiming that you "will not read" the thread, you nonetheless find yourself passively hanging in the background, attempting to suggest doubt.

If you have reasons that go beyond "they wouldn't dare", please express them directly.


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon
Post by: Jack T. Cross on June 26, 2012, 06:04:33 PM
Worry not, I'll not be 'passively hanging' any longer. The reason I posted at all was to posit a sensible question, one that I see you refuse to address. So, you can now remain here all by yourself and mull over your amazing theory into old age, free from interference. Best of luck!

Thanks for playing.


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on June 26, 2012, 06:05:15 PM
Truth always defeats a lie.


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon
Post by: Jack T. Cross on June 26, 2012, 06:34:13 PM
I'm a government operative sent to these boards (and others) to downplay foolproof, obviously true theories like your own. But you have managed to outwit me and I'm admitting this now because I'm extremely impressed by your logical rigor and analytical abilities. Just know that we are now monitoring your communications and tracking your movements because of what you're saying. Notice any vehicles with tinted windows lately?  ;D

For you and your loved ones' safety, try not to talk about this theory (which is obviously true) in public venues too overtly.

Thanks for playing.

You sound frustrated.


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on June 26, 2012, 10:18:51 PM
Your logic and knowledge of politics has single-handedly trumped all the relevant experts and witnesses of the events in question, so of course I'm jealous and hence frustrated! You need to get started on your book and not limit your insights to internet message boards; this could be a big deal if it ever gets out.

Yet you're unable to argue against it.

Perhaps you could borrow from some of the "experts" to get started.


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon
Post by: syntaxmachine on June 27, 2012, 12:28:07 AM
I'm not interested in arguing against it. I'm interested in what you're going to do with this important knowledge in the real world independent of this message board, hence my interjection into the thread in the first place.

I think I may understand your mindset, wanting to possess special knowledge that the masses lack. It helps one feel special and it can be fun to obsess over such theories. However, I know you don't genuinely believe it, because to genuinely believe a thing is to act as if it is true . You're not acting as if this particular theory is true, because if it were there would be a lot of important stuff to do, like present the evidence to scholars/experts for analysis, help convince the unwashed masses of this important fact, and trying to discover a plausible explanation as to why Rumsfeld would do such a thing.

Hence, your presence here is constitutive of your not really believing the theory at hand. You want to obsess and argue and that's fine; just don't confuse this with genuine belief, which would entail actually behaving as if this conspiracy were true, not just talking about it.


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon
Post by: Jack T. Cross on June 27, 2012, 11:06:38 AM
I think I may understand your mindset, wanting to possess special knowledge that the masses lack. It helps one feel special and it can be fun to obsess over such theories.

Maybe you are projecting someone else's feelings onto me.

However, I know you don't genuinely believe it, because to genuinely believe a thing is to act as if it is true . You're not acting as if this particular theory is true, because if it were there would be a lot of important stuff to do, like present the evidence to scholars/experts for analysis

The evidence is not hidden.

help convince the unwashed masses of this important fact, and trying to discover a plausible explanation as to why Rumsfeld would do such a thing.

There is an extremely plausible explanation...just one, in fact.


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on December 16, 2012, 08:33:45 PM
What's the difference between the 2 hours that you use as a hypothetical, and the 34 minutes that it was in reality (if there wasn't communication anyway)?

There wasn't identified threats and overall situational confusion.


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the planes hit the Pentagon?
Post by: OzmO on January 19, 2013, 09:48:37 AM
Did you mean to use this as an answer to my question you quoted? (Maybe you looked at the wrong question?)

Yes, unless I have misunderstood what you are asking or meaning.



Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Roger Bacon on January 20, 2013, 03:54:58 AM
lol gimmick account vs gimmick account in this thread  8)


Title: Re: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on February 14, 2013, 09:35:09 AM
lol gimmick account vs gimmick account in this thread  8)

Interesting theory.