Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
October 25, 2014, 02:10:47 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 15   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?  (Read 18311 times)
OzmO
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20663


Take Money Out of Politics!


« Reply #50 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.
Report to moderator   Logged
Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3575


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


« Reply #51 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?
Report to moderator   Logged

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


Take Money Out of Politics!


« Reply #52 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
Report to moderator   Logged
Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3575


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


« Reply #53 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.
Report to moderator   Logged

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


Take Money Out of Politics!


« Reply #54 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. 

Report to moderator   Logged
Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3575


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


« Reply #55 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?
Report to moderator   Logged

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


Take Money Out of Politics!


« Reply #56 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?

 
Report to moderator   Logged
Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3575


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


« Reply #57 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.
Report to moderator   Logged

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


Take Money Out of Politics!


« Reply #58 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.
Report to moderator   Logged
Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3575


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


« Reply #59 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...?
Report to moderator   Logged

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


Take Money Out of Politics!


« Reply #60 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?
Report to moderator   Logged
Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3575


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


« Reply #61 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?
Report to moderator   Logged

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


Take Money Out of Politics!


« Reply #62 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.
Report to moderator   Logged
Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3575


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


« Reply #63 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?
Report to moderator   Logged

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


Take Money Out of Politics!


« Reply #64 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. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3575


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


« Reply #65 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.
Report to moderator   Logged

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


Take Money Out of Politics!


« Reply #66 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.  
Report to moderator   Logged
Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3575


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


« Reply #67 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.
Report to moderator   Logged

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


Take Money Out of Politics!


« Reply #68 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.
Report to moderator   Logged
Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3575


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


« Reply #69 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.

Report to moderator   Logged

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


Take Money Out of Politics!


« Reply #70 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.
Report to moderator   Logged
Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3575


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


« Reply #71 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
Report to moderator   Logged

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


Take Money Out of Politics!


« Reply #72 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
Report to moderator   Logged
OzmO
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20663


Take Money Out of Politics!


« Reply #73 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.
Report to moderator   Logged
Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3575


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


« Reply #74 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.
Report to moderator   Logged

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 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!