Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
April 24, 2014, 10:00:58 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 15   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?  (Read 16323 times)
240 is Back
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 80048


Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com


View Profile WWW
« Reply #25 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.


* wtfff.gif (38.66 KB, 496x414 - viewed 203 times.)
Report to moderator   Logged

OzmO
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20060


Take Money Out of Politics!


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: October 22, 2011, 07:50:56 AM »

One part at a time bro one part at a time.   Smiley

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

Report to moderator   Logged
240 is Back
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 80048


Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com


View Profile WWW
« Reply #27 on: October 22, 2011, 10:39:59 AM »

One part at a time bro one part at a time.   Smiley

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.
Report to moderator   Logged

Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3251


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


View Profile
« Reply #28 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?
Report to moderator   Logged

crownshep
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 2899


Getbig!


View Profile
« Reply #29 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".

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMK5bmdAEHc" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMK5bmdAEHc</a>
Report to moderator   Logged
Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3251


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: October 28, 2011, 02:38:20 PM »

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMK5bmdAEHc" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMK5bmdAEHc</a>

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.
Report to moderator   Logged

OzmO
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20060


Take Money Out of Politics!


View Profile
« Reply #31 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)



Report to moderator   Logged
Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3251


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


View Profile
« Reply #32 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?
Report to moderator   Logged

OzmO
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20060


Take Money Out of Politics!


View Profile
« Reply #33 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. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3251


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


View Profile
« Reply #34 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.
Report to moderator   Logged

Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3251


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


View Profile
« Reply #35 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.
Report to moderator   Logged

OzmO
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20060


Take Money Out of Politics!


View Profile
« Reply #36 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. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3251


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


View Profile
« Reply #37 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...?
Report to moderator   Logged

OzmO
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20060


Take Money Out of Politics!


View Profile
« Reply #38 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.
Report to moderator   Logged
Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3251


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


View Profile
« Reply #39 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.
Report to moderator   Logged

Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3251


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


View Profile
« Reply #40 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.
Report to moderator   Logged

OzmO
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20060


Take Money Out of Politics!


View Profile
« Reply #41 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. 
Report to moderator   Logged
OzmO
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20060


Take Money Out of Politics!


View Profile
« Reply #42 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. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3251


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


View Profile
« Reply #43 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.
Report to moderator   Logged

OzmO
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20060


Take Money Out of Politics!


View Profile
« Reply #44 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, ďI have the authority in case of an emergency to declare a target hostile and shoot it down under an emergency condition.Ē

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
Report to moderator   Logged
Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3251


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


View Profile
« Reply #45 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, ďI have the authority in case of an emergency to declare a target hostile and shoot it down under an emergency condition.Ē

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.

Report to moderator   Logged

OzmO
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20060


Take Money Out of Politics!


View Profile
« Reply #46 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  Grin

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 thereís 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 hereís 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 itís 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:

-   Itís 9:34
-   They didnít know the target
-   They didnít have solid indication of its position (just a general area)
-   Thereís 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 donít know were the next attack is coming from.
-   We donít 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 didnít exist yet.  Wasnít identified, and whoís 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.  


Report to moderator   Logged
Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3251


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


View Profile
« Reply #47 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 thereís 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 hereís 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 itís 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:

-   Itís 9:34
-   They didnít know the target
-   They didnít have solid indication of its position (just a general area)
-   Thereís 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 donít know were the next attack is coming from.
-   We donít 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 didnít exist yet.  Wasnít identified, and whoís 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.
Report to moderator   Logged

OzmO
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20060


Take Money Out of Politics!


View Profile
« Reply #48 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 ďDukeĒ 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.  
Report to moderator   Logged
Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3251


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


View Profile
« Reply #49 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.
Report to moderator   Logged

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 15   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!