Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
October 20, 2014, 04:20:15 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 15   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?  (Read 18167 times)
Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3564


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


« Reply #75 on: November 12, 2011, 09:26:14 PM »

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

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

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

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

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


Take Money Out of Politics!


« Reply #76 on: November 12, 2011, 09:32:48 PM »

I'm really trying to figure out what you're saying here, OzmO.

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

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

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

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


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

 
Report to moderator   Logged
OzmO
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20663


Take Money Out of Politics!


« Reply #77 on: November 12, 2011, 10:12:24 PM »

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

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

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


i am probably misunderstanding you here but:

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



Report to moderator   Logged
andreisdaman
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 11011


« Reply #78 on: November 13, 2011, 03:46:21 AM »

What I would like to see is some one come up with a detailed theory of what they think really happened on 911 as it was an inside job.  From planning to execution to people and personal involved and from that begin to prove that theory using evidence. 

Any takers?

very nice thread topic but the fact is that people who believe that 911 was an inside job WILL NEVER BELIEVE ANY TYPE OF EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY......you either believe or you don't believe...my son thinks that the planes were holograms and that the gov't set off explosives and coordinated the explosives with the holograms supposedly smashing into the buildings....HOO BOY!!!!
Report to moderator   Logged
Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3564


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


« Reply #79 on: November 13, 2011, 07:23:06 PM »

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

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


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


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


Report to moderator   Logged

Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3564


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


« Reply #80 on: November 13, 2011, 07:24:24 PM »


i am probably misunderstanding you here but:

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





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

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

Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3564


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


« Reply #81 on: November 13, 2011, 07:27:54 PM »

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

Why don't you help us figure it out?
Report to moderator   Logged

andreisdaman
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 11011


« Reply #82 on: November 13, 2011, 07:56:34 PM »

Why don't you help us figure it out?

Because no one here is going to change their minds so why bother....but I thought Ozmo started an interesting thread though....people who believe the U.S. government conspired to knock down the towers are lunatics
Report to moderator   Logged
Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3564


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


« Reply #83 on: November 14, 2011, 10:24:55 AM »

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

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

andreisdaman
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 11011


« Reply #84 on: November 14, 2011, 10:38:31 AM »

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

fair enough.....but the first person who says the towers were destroyed by an alien race who is conspiring with the U.S. Government to take over the world, then I'm out of here! Smiley
Report to moderator   Logged
Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3564


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


« Reply #85 on: November 14, 2011, 10:57:44 AM »

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

 Grin Grin Grin
Report to moderator   Logged

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


Take Money Out of Politics!


« Reply #86 on: November 14, 2011, 01:24:35 PM »

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

This is how things work:

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

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


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

 

Report to moderator   Logged
OzmO
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20663


Take Money Out of Politics!


« Reply #87 on: November 14, 2011, 01:28:36 PM »

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

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
















































 Wink Grin
Report to moderator   Logged
Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3564


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


« Reply #88 on: November 14, 2011, 07:55:25 PM »

They also develop ROE's, protocols and procedures.  But its done not in the heat of battle although because of the absence of these ROE's, protocols and procedures regarding shooting down a hijacked passenger jet, BUSH and Rumsfeld were on the phone at 10am trying to figure that out, because without it, a tragic mistake can happen.

ok.  here is where we're misfiring.

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

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

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

Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3564


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


« Reply #89 on: November 14, 2011, 09:04:06 PM »

i don't want you to think i'm missing your point, so let me say it another way: this situation required rules to be established immediately. only one set of rules could be given to stop another potential hit. only two people could discuss the set of rules and only one person could directly give the set of rules to the military.

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

do you disagree with anything here?

Report to moderator   Logged

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


Take Money Out of Politics!


« Reply #90 on: November 15, 2011, 05:59:20 PM »

ok.  here is where we're misfiring.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is does show is that we were caught with our pants down and unable to respond correctly to prevent some of this attack because the people who needed to make the decisions at the time were not active front line commanders, the short time period between the attacks, lack of available weapons/fighters, confusion, communication break downs etc.  All of which are legitimate criticisms, nothing more.  This was changed after 9/11.
Report to moderator   Logged
Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3564


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


« Reply #91 on: November 15, 2011, 08:12:43 PM »

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3564


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


« Reply #92 on: November 15, 2011, 09:53:16 PM »

After that, as only can be expected Rumsfeld goes down to the crash sight.

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

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

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

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


Take Money Out of Politics!


« Reply #93 on: November 16, 2011, 09:12:23 AM »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additionally, and i am still in the process of researching this, I don't know if Rumsfeld was even in the chain of command for something like this.
Report to moderator   Logged
Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3564


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


« Reply #94 on: November 16, 2011, 07:57:28 PM »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Take Money Out of Politics!


« Reply #95 on: November 29, 2011, 12:24:56 PM »

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

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

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


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

The bottom line for me is this:

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

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

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

If this this was spaced out in hours not minutes you'd have something. 
 
Report to moderator   Logged
Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3564


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


« Reply #96 on: November 29, 2011, 11:39:34 PM »


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

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

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


Take Money Out of Politics!


« Reply #97 on: November 30, 2011, 10:27:43 AM »

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

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

You keep on asserting your charge in the context of Rumsfeld being the "one who issues the order" and its just not realistic or true.  The DS is not an active commander or participant in an unplanned or prepared for attack in the 30 minutes after 9:03.  That's just not how the military works in the mist/beginning of a battle.  this is where your charge is incorrect and this is why piratically no one (and there are thousands of thousands of these people ATC's, Flight operations managers, former military pilots, FAA employees etc) with any real knowledge of how our defense worked on that day that see as anything more than what i have been saying.  
Report to moderator   Logged
Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3564


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


« Reply #98 on: November 30, 2011, 10:09:35 PM »

The argument is this:

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

The reality couldn't be more clear:

Quote from: U.S. Department of Defense
The National Command Authority (NCA) is the ultimate lawful source of miltary orders.  The NCA consists only of the President and the Secretary of Defense or their duly deputized alternates or successors. The chain of command runs from the President to the Secretary of Defense and through the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the Commanders of the Unified and Specified Commands. - Section 3.1, Department of Defense Directive 5100.30

*Restructured in 1986 to bypass the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Report to moderator   Logged

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


Take Money Out of Politics!


« Reply #99 on: November 30, 2011, 10:25:08 PM »

The argument is this:

The reality couldn't be more clear:


The reality isn't that simple.  Hence not realistic or true.  think on paper versus in practice (not even in practice really) and think in terms of the time involved.
So this it Jack?

Because he had the authority and didn't use it in the minutes it occured, in the confusion that resulted from not being prepared that proves he purposefully delayed it?



Or is it because this is how it's supposed to work an ddidnt so that proves it?

If that's the whole argument that's why it virtually isn't considered legit by anyone who has the actual working knowledge of how the military works and would know if foul play was involved........thsaound s and thousands of them.
 
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 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!