They're not psychic, OzmO.
Please stop and think for a minute. Even if the situation worked like you believe:
The number one problem we were facing was a lack of time to react. Even the thickest skulled person could see this. Beyond all the ways that time was already working against us, were we to add further time to allow for contact between the President and the Secretary of Defense, after the need was to present itself?
This was an attack involving commercial airliners. How could they possibly presume to know that their command as the NCA wouldn't be required under such conditions? The exact opposite thought should have occurred to both of them, yet neither responded as such.
Step by step, point by point, it was a pattern of behavior that spanned individuals and worked toward increasing the chance for a successful attack. Willful, deliberate behavior that went against what should be expected.
Most of what you wrote there is based on hindsight. You know the answers because you know exactly what was happening and when. The people involved here did not know and in many cases not in direct communication with otherS and many many people were involved. I have explained in detail as to why, even giving account to your incorrect assumptions of what you felt they should have known. Also, this was an attack never before attempted on this scale, which was beyond belief even though it happened right before their eyes. The DS, although could order it, wouldn't be the one to do it. He'd defer to the president. the president was unavailable, there were no identified threats, communication lines were being set up in the minutes immediately following the second WTC crash, and planes were being scrambled.
Basically it just happen too fast. And of course again, it wouldn't have made any difference at all, because flight 77 hits regardless of the DS magically knowing exactly what to do. Refer to the post of your 3 incorrect assumptions concerning what the DS knew at 9:04. Heck, refer to the many other incorrect assumptoins you have based your charge on.
OzmO, it is only by looking back that we can say where Rumsfeld had been at 0937-10xx.
More importantly, the same truth applies to the NMCC, who had tried unsuccessfully to locate him at that time.
Again...step by step...willful and deliberate...opposite of expected.
This is not a series of coincidences.
Where Rumsfeld was, in the context of your charge, from 9:37 to 10:00 is meaningless because the plane already hit and its not unreasonable for him to want to see what just happened. Further more, during that time, he notified his staff where he was going and it was verified by witnesses who interacted with him at the crash sight. Also, again and again and again, HE's MORE OF AN ADMINISTRATOR not a on duty commander, a distinction absent in your theory. Think of it like this:
9/11 was a football game where the Cowboys got blindsided on the field.
NORAD was the coach, who didn't have the information to make a call
BUSH was Jimmy Jones in the luxury suite talking to the press who also didn't have the information to make the right call
Rumsfeld was GM of player personal. (if you know anything about football you'll know what that means)
NEADS/Pilots where the Cowboy players
Please look at comments made by Commissioner Gorelick, and comments made by General Winfield, regarding Rumsfeld.
I am familiar that they are comments, but they are not in the "Official report" as suggested. They are comments whose context and time they were made are not accounted for. (Likely a typical "Cherry picking" example frequent in many CT type arguments) However, Rumsfeld whereabouts are well accounted for completely invalidating Gorelicks comments.
So in summary:
You are charging Rumsfeld with not acting accordingly in the moments from 9:03 to 9:37 even though it wouldn't have made any difference and therefore is guilty of being behind 9/11 (since you are making it a habit of not directly answering my questions this is what i am left to understand)
Which brings up my questions:
Who does Rumsfeld call,
What does he say to them and
when does he call them?
Fact: HE did not deliberately thwart the defense of the nation due to his inaction.
Fact: HE did not deliberately thwart the defense of the nation due to his actions.
Show me otherwise
Being that you have now over 3 times avoided these questions and many others i am left to assume you can't answer them and left with the conclusion that your theory is purely based on conjecture, speculation and baseless charges.I don't accept truth that way. I try not to formulate theories and work backwards only paying attention to anything no matter how remote that can be applied to support it while ignoring the rest.
Show me proof. Show me facts. Show me otherwise and then i change my mind. I am always ready to make a new decision based on new information. (but the info has to be legit, not like that omitted out of context quip when weighed against the thurough accountability of Rumsfeld whereabouts on 9-11)
PS Those comments were likely omitted because they WERE FALSE as i have shown repeatedly. Show me otherwise.