Author Topic: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?  (Read 60435 times)

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22688
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
The 'who', as I've already said, is the other half of the NCA.  That would be President Bush.

President BUSH was unavailable.  So "who" does he call?
Quote
The 'when' should be upon the plane hitting the second tower--at the very latest.  

So when the he's informed about a second plane hitting he's to immediately assume there are more terrorists hijacking planes an issue shoot down ROE made up on the fly and without verification?  VERY IRRESPONSIBLE. And likely leading to additional catastrophe.  

Quote
The 'what' has been the main point we've been debating, and it is a simple question of whether Rumsfeld should have waited to see if a request to establish rules would arrive, or if he should have immediately established rules for the most obvious and imminent threats involving hijacked airliners.

That's not an answer.  1/3 so far.  What does he say and who does he say it to?

Please answer.
 
Quote
((By the way, although I haven't said anything about Rumsfeld's actions after the first attack, they couldn't possibly be more consistent with the rest of the story.

The evidence clearly shows that regular consideration was given for attacks involving planes flying into buildings--including the WTC.  With the shock of the first tower being hit, it should have been especially concerning for those in the business.  

No it doesn't.  If "regular consideration" was given for attacks involving planes flying into buildings we would have had a Primary Radar system without massive holes through out the country, and establish procedure in how to deal with them prior to 9/11 and more alert planes.  We did not.  Incorrect assumption

Quote
To think that it didn't generate any effort toward simple contact between NCA members cannot be found consistent with a protective attitude.

Who are the NCA members?  Do you know all the things in regards to contacting keys members of government and military in the minutes following the second plane strike?  Video conferencing was being set up, crisis management teams, emergency communication lines etc etc etc all were happening int he minutes after the second plane.  Another incorrect assumption.

Quote
But it's been my pattern to give the benefit of doubt in this thread; and I am willing to do it here, too.  So let's just say 'when' is at the second hit, and he should have been primed to do so from the first hit.))

No, because nearly everyone thought the first hit was just an accident.

Quote
You have stated:

When we're talking about a Secretary of Defense who went willingly missing for half an hour.

Extremely incorrect!  Did you even read my thread?  From 9:03 to 9:37 he was in office.  ALL his staffers in his group knew that.  When the Flight 77 hit, thinking it was a bomb, he informed his staffers where he was going:  To the area of impact.    

Quote
OzmO, you are basing your conclusions on a "they wouldn't dare" theory.  Such a theory ignores facts, and it ignores the facts as they are viewed as a whole.

Not even a little bit.  Using a "They wouldn't Dare theory" is completely ludicrous and is the approach you have been using most of this thread when you say things "If the goal was not to get implicated then...."  That's exactly what you have been doing most of this time.....Using unproven premises and speculation.  And as more facts are bought out all you seem to have is either incorrect assumptions or rhetorical arguments.  

I am basing my conclusions on FACTS as we know them.  Period.  

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.
  (0/2 here.  I'll let the 3rd one go)

PS:  just so you know.  I hate our government.  So even insinuating i think they wouldn't dare is funny to me.  What i think is:  based on the FACTS as we know them, Rumsfeld did not because of his inaction or actions thwart our defenses causing flight 77 to hit the outer ring of the pentagon where Rumsfeld office is also located in the large complex.  

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22688
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
I was the one to "reveal" Rumsfeld's activities many pages ago, OzmO.

Let me guess: you didn't even read it.

Incorrect.  I read every thing you post here.  Now, in fairness, becuase of our conversation i have found it helpful to research much more. 


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.

Incorrect. 



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. 



This was in response to me saying this:

"But to think he didn't talk to anyone for a significant length of time during the attacks seems very unlikely."

Facts are he talked to people.   

Jack T. Cross

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4098
  • Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)
The fact that you would say this:

Who are the NCA members?

After reading this probably twenty times in the thread:

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.

...tells me that you are mentally blocking the facts of this case.

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22688
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
The fact that you would say this:

After reading this probably twenty times in the thread:

...tells me that you are mentally blocking the facts of this case.

I wasn't asking the question because i don't know, i was asking to question for you to look into it and see what was in action in the minutes after 9:03 from the Pentagon to the White house and else where....in that what WAS being set up and how these things were being done accordingly.  

Other than that I am sure you have answers to the questions i asked and or comments disputing the facts i have brought up?  Or will you just ignore that BUSH was unavailable until just after 9:16, all your incorrect assumptions i listed above, or that a secure video conferencing center was in action with Richard Clarke at the white house with RICE there and NORAD on the line, or that emergency response teams were being set up, the executive support center was in action, or will ignore my serious question asking you to show otherwise these facts:


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.

Here's what you are doing Jack:

You have made up your mind that Rumsfeld thwarted the 9/11 defense of our nation and you are ONLY paying attention to anything that will support that theory even it if it is irrelevant, such as your NCA argument or having to use a unsupported/unproven premise to make an argument.  

Why is it irrelevant as it pertains to this area of 9/11?

1.  BUSH was unreachable
2.  Only a few minutes (34) had passed since 9:03
3.  The military or government did not stand down at any time during the events of 9/11
4.  Rumsfeld was 100% accessible until 9:37

Like i keep saying, if all you have is:  Rumsfeld should have set up ROE's on the fly immediately after 9:03 even though it wouldn't have made a difference to the outcome, you have nothing there.   You can't even call that a "flimsy" case.

Jack T. Cross

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4098
  • Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)
Or will you just ignore that BUSH was unavailable until just after 9:16

He was "unavailable" because of this, OzmO?:

And where was the president at this time?  Reading stories to children when he learns of the attack at 9:06.  He finishes the stories at about 9:16 and doesn't leave the school until 9:29.

Looks like this applies to you:

You have made up your mind...
 


OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22688
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
He was "unavailable" because of this, OzmO?:

Looks like this applies to you:
  



He wasn't reading stories?  He was doing what he was doing, nothing changes that.  

but let's say for instance he was reachable, would it have made any difference in the success of the attack?

No.

When I see something that isn't based on a unproven premise/speculation, multiple incorrect assumptions, or evidence surfaces that shows otherwise, i am only left through logic and common sense that:  


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 and i will change my mind.  


Jack T. Cross

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4098
  • Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)
He was able to communicate, so he was available.  You cannot use the fact that he was reading to a class as an excuse for non-formation of the NCA.

The thing is, I know damned well that you understand this.

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22688
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
He was able to communicate, so he was available.  You cannot use the fact that he was reading to a class as an excuse for non-formation of the NCA.

The thing is, I know damned well that you understand this.
So now we are talking about Bush?  I thought the issue here in this thread was Rumsfeld.  We can talk about that if you want.   Do you understand the concept of "chain of command" as it relates to NCA?
But I'd rather you address your incorrect assumptions and flawed logic on this topic first.

The funny part of this to me is the minutes you expected all this to happen and because it didn't happened the way you think it should you think Rumsfeld is guilty even though it wouldn't have mattered anyway.  I mean Jack come on!  Doesnt that just lack any sense to you?

Jack T. Cross

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4098
  • Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)
So now we are talking about Bush?

Or will you just ignore that BUSH was unavailable until just after 9:16

You're running from the truth, OzmO.  Take it from it me, that doesn't work.

Do you understand the concept of "chain of command" as it relates to NCA?

I do understand.  That's why I brought it to the thread.

But I'd rather you address your incorrect assumptions and flawed logic on this topic first.

I'll work on a way for us to plow through to the truth, as tough as it may be.

The sub-topic of Bush is a good example of our problem.  You are dead set on believing that Bush was 'unavailable' simply because he was in a classroom.  You will then purposely build an entire system of thought based on the idea that Bush was unavailable, when in fact this idea is incorrect.

So...just on the above point, how can you disagree?

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22688
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
You're running from the truth, OzmO.  Take it from it me, that doesn't work.

I do understand.  That's why I brought it to the thread.

I'll work on a way for us to plow through to the truth, as tough as it may be.

The sub-topic of Bush is a good example of our problem.  You are dead set on believing that Bush was 'unavailable' simply because he was in a classroom.  You will then purposely build an entire system of thought based on the idea that Bush was unavailable, when in fact this idea is incorrect.

So...just on the above point, how can you disagree?

Jack, we still need to first address the many incorrect assumptions you have made recently on this thread and answer the questions i bought up.  Because i believe you are basing much of your conclusion on these.  but as always,  :), i will address the points you made in this post.  

As for BUSH.  He was in a classroom reading to kids by his choice making him unavailable for 10 minutes.   Meaning he took no calls, make no orders, etc.  It is what it was.  Could he have made himself available?  Of course.  He choose to take 10 minutes a read a story to kids.  HENCE, Rumsfeld could not reach him.  I have been very critical of him in other threads in the past over this, but do not think its in anyway a smoking gun that can proven or used as strong evidence of any foul play.   AND if you look at what he did from 9:16 to 9:29 it will show you Rumsfeld's place in all of this which relates to what i have been saying consistently in this thread about Rumsfeld being more of a administrator. 

_________list of still unanswered 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

_________Additional questions___________

How does the Chain of Command and the NCA relate to each other?

Just to be clear again, Is your main case that Rumsfeld deliberately thwarted our defense to allow a plane to hit the pentagon based on Rumsfled not calling the POTUS and or whoever(you still haven't answer "WHO" other than the President who wasn't avail for 10 minutes) immediately after 9:03/4 to set up ROE's so that fighters could should down planes without presidential approval even though it wouldn't have made a difference and that Rumsfeld was doing this knowing that a fully fueled jet was heading to crash into a building complex he was in?

Just to make sure in case i am mistaken:  do you agree that whether Rumsfeld did or not try immediately after 9:03 to initiate ROE's on the fly and get word to the military,  flight 77 would have hit either way?

Jack T. Cross

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4098
  • Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)
OzmO, I have good reason to believe you are in denial.  You are unwilling to to accept facts because that's where the unpleasant truth of this matter is.

When the Flight 77 hit, thinking it was a bomb, he informed his staffers where he was going:  To the area of impact.

This was the period of time when the Command Center was unable to contact him.  It is now a matter of public record.  He did not make arrangements for communication.

It has been covered several times in this thread, which tells me you are blocking the information from your own acknowledgement.

Here is the most basic element.  Do you deny this is the law as it applied, word for word:

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

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22688
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
OzmO, I have good reason to believe you are in denial.  You are unwilling to to accept facts because that's where the unpleasant truth of this matter is.

This was the period of time when the Command Center was unable to contact him.  It is now a matter of public record.  He did not make arrangements for communication.

It has been covered several times in this thread, which tells me you are blocking the information from your own acknowledgement.

Here is the most basic element.  Do you deny this is the law as it applied, word for word:


Sigh.  You are still avoiding my questions.  You are still running from your incorrect assumptions and there are likely more that can be revealed with more research.

But again, i will address your points immediately.   :)

1.  He's not the person to make the shoot down decision, the president is.
2.  He's more of an administrator
3.  The chain of command is the same thing as the NCA for the purposes of this discussion.
4.  He didn't abandon his post
5.  He didn't order the stoppage of military operations or responses
6.  It wouldn't have matter any way, the plane would have hit
7.  No targets were ever identified
8.  He notified his staff where he was going
9.  NO ONE was waiting for him to make some sort of decision for a shoot down order

Honestly, i could probably add 3-6 more arguments against your charge and incorrect assumption.  

So are you going to keep dodging my questions or avoiding addressing your incorrect assumptions or is this how its going to be from here forward, with dramatics like "avoiding the unpleasant truths" or "they wouldn't dare" BS?

Jack T. Cross

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4098
  • Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)
I will write a very refined version of my thoughts on the subject, and would welcome you to refine your challenges when you read it.

In the meantime, it is important for me to know whether you deny this was the law as it applied, word for word:

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

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22688
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
I will write a very refined version of my thoughts on the subject, and would welcome you to refine your challenges when you read it.

In the meantime, it is important for me to know whether you deny this was the law as it applied, word for word:


when have i ever denied it?

The point is, it is not an issue regarding your charge.  HENCE, moot. 


OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22688
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
I will write a very refined version of my thoughts on the subject, and would welcome you to refine your challenges when you read it.

In the meantime, it is important for me to know whether you deny this was the law as it applied, word for word:


By the way you need to rewrite your thoughts because most of what you have come up with lately is incorrect.


Jack T. Cross

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4098
  • Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)
By the way, here are some comments about Rumsfeld in the 911 Report (also know as the "official story"):

Leader of the National Military Command Center: "For 30 minutes we couldn't find him."

The 911 Commission: "We still don't have a full accounting of Rumsfeld's whereabouts and knowledge on the morning of 9-11"

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22688
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
By the way, here are some comments about Rumsfeld in the 911 Report (also know as the "official story"):

Leader of the National Military Command Center: "For 30 minutes we couldn't find him."

The 911 Commission: "We still don't have a full accounting of Rumsfeld's whereabouts and knowledge on the morning of 9-11"

We both know, while it's the official story, it's not the whole story.  And yes, communication was not timely and perfect that day in many many many instances between many many many parties.  

Additionally, without serious research and cross examination, the research I have done indicates that Rumsfeld was accounted for pretty much at all times here.  So, I'd ask you to, if possible provide a link to that 9/11 commission  report.  Feel free to this before answering those questions I asked or address the incorrect assumptions I listed.  

Jack T. Cross

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4098
  • Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)
We both know, while it's the official story, it's not the whole story.  And yes, communication was not timely and perfect that day in many many many instances between many many many parties.

It was a lack of communication between the two members of the National Command Authority that is most important.  

Additionally, without serious research and cross examination, the research I have done indicates that Rumsfeld was accounted for pretty much at all times here.

Using hindsight, or...?

So, I'd ask you to, if possible provide a link to that 9/11 commission  report.  Feel free to this before answering those questions I asked or address the incorrect assumptions I listed.  

http://www.911commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22688
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
No it isn't important because it (the NCA/Chain of command) didn't hinge on the communication between BUSH and Rumsfeld in the minutes after 903 to get a shoot down order done.  

Not in hindsight, on record.  Do you know what i am talking about when I use the word "hindsight" when showing you the error in your charges versus me saying Rumsfeld was pretty much accounted for during the events of 9/11?  Because your statement suggests you don't.

Quote
http://www.911commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

Pretty sure It's not in there.  You might want to research it again, maybe some place other than a truther site. 

Jack T. Cross

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4098
  • Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)
No it isn't important because it (the NCA/Chain of command) didn't hinge on the communication between BUSH and Rumsfeld in the minutes after 903 to get a shoot down order done.

They're not psychic, OzmO.

Please stop and think for a minute.  Even if the situation worked like you believe:

He knows when they get a hijacked plane identified and intercepted the decision can be made then.

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.  

Not in hindsight, on record.  Do you know what i am talking about when I use the word "hindsight" when showing you the error in your charges versus me saying Rumsfeld was pretty much accounted for during the events of 9/11?  Because your statement suggests you don't.

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.

Pretty sure It's not in there.  You might want to research it again, maybe some place other than a truther site.  

Please look at comments made by Commissioner Gorelick, and comments made by General Winfield, regarding Rumsfeld.

Jack T. Cross

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4098
  • Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)
By the way, I meant to say these comments were omitted from the official story.

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22688
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
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.  
 
Quote
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

Quote
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.

Jack T. Cross

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4098
  • Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)
You're being dishonest with yourself.

the president was unavailable

your 3 incorrect assumptions concerning what the DS knew at 9:04

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22688
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
You're being dishonest with yourself.


No.  Show me otherwise.

PS no offense, you are not making much sense lately and you have been ignoring many of my questions which speaks volumes.

Jack T. Cross

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4098
  • Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)
No.  Show me otherwise.


In the face of death and destruction like the country had never seen, you are trying to make an argument that the President was unavailable--when Rumsfeld didn't attempt to contact him in the first place.

In The Name of God, please think of what you are saying.

My friend, you do not want to piece this together.  I understand.

I've been able to refine this particular argument thanks to you more than anyone else, and it's been interesting.  I appreciate it.  

You're a good bro, OzmO.  Respect.