Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
October 24, 2014, 05:03:25 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 15   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?  (Read 18269 times)
Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3573


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


« Reply #275 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.
Report to moderator   Logged

OzmO
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20663


Take Money Out of Politics!


« Reply #276 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)
Report to moderator   Logged
Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3573


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


« Reply #277 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.
Report to moderator   Logged

OzmO
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20663


Take Money Out of Politics!


« Reply #278 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)
Report to moderator   Logged
Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3573


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


« Reply #279 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.
Report to moderator   Logged

OzmO
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20663


Take Money Out of Politics!


« Reply #280 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.

 Roll Eyes

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.
Report to moderator   Logged
Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3573


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


« Reply #281 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.
Report to moderator   Logged

OzmO
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20663


Take Money Out of Politics!


« Reply #282 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.

 Roll Eyes

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?








Report to moderator   Logged
Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3573


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


« Reply #283 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.
Report to moderator   Logged

OzmO
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20663


Take Money Out of Politics!


« Reply #284 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.

 Roll Eyes

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. 



Report to moderator   Logged
Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3573


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


« Reply #285 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.
Report to moderator   Logged

Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3573


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


« Reply #286 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.
Report to moderator   Logged

OzmO
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20663


Take Money Out of Politics!


« Reply #287 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  Roll Eyes)

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)

Report to moderator   Logged
Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3573


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


« Reply #288 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.
Report to moderator   Logged

OzmO
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20663


Take Money Out of Politics!


« Reply #289 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.
Report to moderator   Logged
Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3573


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


« Reply #290 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.
Report to moderator   Logged

OzmO
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20663


Take Money Out of Politics!


« Reply #291 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.
Report to moderator   Logged
Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3573


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


« Reply #292 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.
Report to moderator   Logged

OzmO
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20663


Take Money Out of Politics!


« Reply #293 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?

Report to moderator   Logged
Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3573


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


« Reply #294 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.
Report to moderator   Logged

Shockwave
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20623


Decepticons! Scramble!


« Reply #295 on: May 05, 2012, 03:02:19 PM »

Again, let me help.
The answer, is no. He did not.  Wink
Report to moderator   Logged
OzmO
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20663


Take Money Out of Politics!


« Reply #296 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.


Report to moderator   Logged
Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3573


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


« Reply #297 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.
Report to moderator   Logged

OzmO
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20663


Take Money Out of Politics!


« Reply #298 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.   Roll Eyes  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?



Report to moderator   Logged
Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3573


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


« Reply #299 on: May 07, 2012, 10:18:00 AM »

Jack everything is NOT a conspiracy.   Roll Eyes  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.
Report to moderator   Logged

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 15   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!