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

[Jack T. Cross]

I hope you're well, by the way.

[OzmO]

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..

[Jack T. Cross]

Any action, taken by any person, would be an attempt toward decreasing, or toward increasing, the chance for further death.

[OzmO]

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. 

[Jack T. Cross]

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?

[OzmO]

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"

[Jack T. Cross]

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.

[OzmO]

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. 

[Jack T. Cross]

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(?).

[OzmO]

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.  

[Jack T. Cross]

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?

[OzmO]

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?

[Jack T. Cross]

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?

[OzmO]

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)

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?

[Jack T. Cross]

OzmO, would agree that Rumsfeld was bound by a forward-looking perspective that morning?

[OzmO]

OzmO, would agree that Rumsfeld was bound by a forward-looking perspective that morning?

What do you mean exactly?

[Jack T. Cross]

What do you mean exactly?

Scrap that.  My browser froze when I was trying to post something.

[Jack T. Cross]

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.

[OzmO]

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. 

[Jack T. Cross]

Not likely.  They didn't have...

In that case, please describe an unlikely scenario that could be an exception in your opinion.

[OzmO]

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

[OzmO]

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. 

[Jack T. Cross]

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?

[OzmO]

You are doing it again.  Just get to the point please.

[Jack T. Cross]

You are doing it again.  Just get to the point please.