Author Topic: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?  (Read 60441 times)

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22688
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
I asking you to just get to your point.  Commonly you just ask a series of leading questions, similar to what a person would do in a conversation.  Too much can get lost doing that in a forum and it becomes tedious on my end with you often ignoring my requests or questions and all do is end up tyuping and repeating the same answers over and over.  So maybe you are trying to make to distinction between being general response to varied threats and a response to a specific threat.  If that's the case just make your point. 

Or just admit all you have are empty arguments.

Jack T. Cross

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4098
  • Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)
So maybe you are trying to make to distinction between being general response...and a response to a specific threat.  

Wait a minute.  If you understand the distinction, why haven't you accounted for it in your argument?

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22688
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Wait a minute.  If you understand the distinction, why haven't you accounted for it in your argument?



I have, why haven't you?

Jack T. Cross

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4098
  • Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


I have, why haven't you?

Please explain.

OzmO

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

Read my posts in the thread, why haven't you accounted for it in your argument?

Jack T. Cross

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4098
  • Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)
Fair enough.  Let's have a closer look at this part of the story.

Regarding a general response, I said this...

Quote
We're talking about a simple set of rules to be used for any encounter with an uncooperative and improperly triangulated plane, that would have had all possible slant toward not shooting.

A genuinely defensive posture would have REQUIRED such provisions to be in place. 

Please show otherwise, as this is where we are divided.

And you responded...

Quote
All you have here at the most is a charge of incompetence born from hindsight.

Let me ask you directly, in your opinion, if it was incompetence that prevented such a ruleset from being placed into effect.

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22688
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Did they have a  uncooperative plane triangulated between 903 and 937?

Meticulously contemplate your answer.

Jack T. Cross

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4098
  • Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)
I want a sincere answer.

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22688
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
I want a sincere answer.

So do I.  

The difference is my question is about facts yours is about conjecture.  

Do you believe the truth is based on facts or conjecture?

BTW what rule-set are you talking about exactly?  (explain the rule set in detail because chances are, your ruleset is unrealistic)

Also, i will answer your question directly upon clarification of  the ruleset, AND when you answer mine plus  the one on this post.

Jack T. Cross

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4098
  • Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)
This is leading us to a place that would suggest Donald Rumsfeld had presumed -- completely without communication or consultation of any sort -- to know more about such issues than the people who are trained in them, and furthermore it suggests that he made such an egregious presumption while hundreds of civilians were being killed, and more planes were still in the sky.

"Whether such an action would include a preemptive ruleset for the most obvious and imminent threat, or if it would be nothing more than a maintained line of communication as the National Command Authority -- done, in order to expedite rules for a threat already in motion..."

OzmO

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

All you did was regurgitate your argument in a different form.  Maybe you cut and pasted from the same place you got your argument.

In order for me to answer your question:  What exactly would the ruleset be?  

AND do you believe truth is based on fact or conjecture?


AND. Did they have a plane targeted between 903 and 937?

Shockwave

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 20807
  • Decepticons! Scramble!
Ill answer the question in the topic for you guys.

No.

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22688
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Ill answer the question in the topic for you guys.

No.

Thanks for clearing that up.   ;)

Jack T. Cross

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4098
  • Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)
All you did was regurgitate your argument in a different form.  Maybe you cut and pasted from the same place you got your argument.

In order for me to answer your question:  What exactly would the ruleset be?  

AND do you believe truth is based on fact or conjecture?

AND. Did they have a plane targeted between 903 and 937?

No, OzmO.  It was taken from a post I made on a recent page, and they are my own words.  It is something that you read only to the second or third sentence, at which point you felt compelled to blurt out that Rumsfeld wasn't the person to order planes to land.

The topic requires an attention span, so let's focus on just one point.  You have stated:

Quote
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.  Beyond all the ways that time was 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?

That would increase the chance for further death.

Was this inconsistency due to incompetence, or...?

Jack T. Cross

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4098
  • Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)
Ill answer the question in the topic for you guys.

No.

The choice of topic title requires us to assume that Rumsfeld knew a plane was on its way to Pentagon.

Needless to say, that places us on an uncertain path right from the beginning.

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22688
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
No, OzmO.  It was taken from a post I made on a recent page, and they are my own words.  It is something that you read only to the second or third sentence, at which point you felt compelled to blurt out that Rumsfeld wasn't the person to order planes to land.
The topic requires an attention span, so let's focus on just one point.  You have stated:
The number one problem we were facing was a lack of time to react.  Beyond all the ways that time was 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?That would increase the chance for further death.
Was this inconsistency due to incompetence, or...?


This what happens when I multi-multi task  :)

Meanwhile, You still haven't answered the questions I asked.  

Rule set?

Fact or conjecture?

Targets between 9:03 - 9:37?

Anytime you are ready.

(3rd request)

Jack T. Cross

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4098
  • Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)
Foreign enemies that want control of the USA did this.  Not rummy.  Noone would do this to heir own people.   Noone.  It is the exact opposite. Look at who the power structure is that is diametrically opposed to the bush crowd.  They are rich white American business men.  They stand the most to lose by 9/11.  It is the enemies of this power structure that committed 9/11.  Now they own the presidency too.  For now.  I know the rich whiteys will save us.  Thanks Rumsfeld bush and Cheney, you guys did a great job!

 :-\

Jack T. Cross

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4098
  • Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)
This what happens when I multi-multi task  :)

No.  This happens when you don't understand a subject, and deny all opportunities to learn about it.

Rule set?

None.  It is absolutely inconceivable that any preemptive ruleset could lower the probability for further death, not even for confirmed hijacks refusing to divert course from population centers.


Fact or conjecture?

Fact, of course.

Targets between 9:03 - 9:37?

None.  Not even the one at 0925.

I would like you to now focus on acknowledging the following:

Quote
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.  Beyond all the ways that time was 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?

That increases the chance for further death.

Was this inconsistency due to incompetence, or...?

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22688
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
No.  This happens when you don't understand a subject, and deny all opportunities to learn about it.

I understand the subject extremely well, the difference between you and me is I don't validate conjecture and speculation.

Quote
None.  It is absolutely inconceivable that any preemptive ruleset could lower the probability for further death, not even for confirmed hijacks refusing to divert course from population centers.
So why are you asking me a question based on a rule-set?




Let me ask you directly, in your opinion, if it was incompetence that prevented such a ruleset from being placed into effect.

Exactly what ruleset are you talking about here?  Or was this a typo?


Quote
Fact, of course.

Then what facts support:  Rumfeld intended to thwart our defenses to allow the planeto hit and what facts support his actions or inaction caused it to happen?

Quote
None.  Not even the one at 0925.

If there were never any opportunities to shoot a plane down how is it that Rumsfeld is guilty of allowing a plane to hit pentagon?

Really Jack, can you make any kind of reasonable argument here?



Quote
I would like you to now focus on acknowledging the following:

The number one problem we were facing was a lack of time to react.  Beyond all the ways that time was 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?

That increases the chance for further death.

Was this inconsistency due to incompetence, or...?

Not neccessarily was time to react the number one problem.  I see it as a combination of quite few things that allowed the plane to hit the pentagon of which Rumfelds can not be tied to as it being his intention to allow the plane to hit the pentagon. One of the things that doesn't spurr contact between Rumsfeld and Bush in the minutes after 903 is Bush continues to read, no other threats reported.  there a few other possible explanations I could list like, not knowing what to do at the moment.  But point is, even them talking in the  minutes after 903 will still end up with the plane hitting.  So even if you prove intent which you can't, you still don't have a crime.

So to answer your question, I would call it unpreparedness, (which encompasses slowreaction time, lack of assets to repsond, lack of information, lack of protocols and lack of tracking/ radar) more than anything.

Which is what I have been saying all along.  


PS do you believe Bush needed to or was required to consult with Rumsfeld first in order to issue the order to shoot the plane down?


Jack T. Cross

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4098
  • Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)
You should know the law in this case by now.

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

OzmO, I know you really dislike direct questioning.  But I need to establish a few things right away.

Do you understand that communication between the NCA would have immediately decreased the probability for further murder?

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22688
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
You should know the law in this case by now.

OzmO, I know you really dislike direct questioning.  But I need to establish a few things right away.

Do you understand that communication between the NCA would have immediately decreased the probability for further murder?

In this situation no.  

If you believe yes, tell me exactly how:

And how does not immediately communicating with the NCA from 903 to 937 figured as evidence of Rumsfeld being in on it?
(1st request)

Speaking of avoiding questions:

So why are you asking me a question based on a rule-set?
Exactly what ruleset are you talking about here?  Or was this a typo?
If there were never any opportunities to shoot a plane down how is it that Rumsfeld is guilty of allowing a plane to hit pentagon?
PS do you believe Bush needed to or was required to consult with Rumsfeld first in order to issue the order to shoot the plane down?


(2nd request)


PS  i don't readily fall into the trap of answering loaded questions that fall into the Logical fallacy category.  Ask better realistic truthful questions and i will answer them faster. Not question like for example: If Rumsfeld was intending to put himself in a position not to be able to be blamed for anything isn't his actions consistent with that?  

Also, Be willing to explain your question when i ask, such as this thing about the Ruleset instead of ignoring it.


Jack T. Cross

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4098
  • Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)
So you're saying you don't believe that a line of communication between the NCA, created during an attack by hijacked commercial airliners, would have decreased the probability for further death.

There is something pathological happening here, and it is out of my realm.

OzmO, as to the rest of your questions, I would ask that you read that particular post again, as it was a sarcastic attempt to jog your grasp of logic.

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22688
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
So you're saying you don't believe that a line of communication between the NCA, created during an attack by hijacked commercial airliners, would have decreased the probability for further death.

There is something pathological happening here, and it is out of my realm.

OzmO, as to the rest of your questions, I would ask that you read that particular post again, as it was a sarcastic attempt to jog your grasp of logic.

Nice way to avoid answering questions.  

If you don't think i am correct about communication with the NCA, instead of ridiculing my answer prove me wrong. Maybe even use facts, something you frequently don't use in your arguments.  You will find out just how   Uninformed you are about how our military/defense works and the ridiculousness of some of your arguments and how they, as most CT's, are mostly based on naive speculation, conjecture, loaded questions that use unproven premises as a integral component.  

Meanwhile:

If you believe yes, tell me exactly how:
And how does not immediately communicating with the NCA from 903 to 937 figured as evidence of Rumsfeld being in on it?

(2nd request)

So why are you asking me a question based on a rule-set?
Exactly what ruleset are you talking about here?  Or was this a typo?
If there were never any opportunities to shoot a plane down how is it that Rumsfeld is guilty of allowing a plane to hit pentagon?
PS do you believe Bush needed to or was required to consult with Rumsfeld first in order to issue the order to shoot the plane down?

(3rd request)

OzmO, I know you really dislike direct questioning.

lol




Jack T. Cross

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4098
  • Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)
This was an attack by hijacked commercial airliners.  If it was necessary to destroy such a vehicle, it would first require approval from the National Command Authority.

And airplanes move very quickly.

Are you with me so far?

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22688
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
This was an attack by hijacked commercial airliners.  If it was necessary to destroy such a vehicle, it would first require approval from the National Command Authority.

And airplanes move very quickly.

Are you with me so far?

Not completely correct.

I'll explain why after you answer my questions  because we are not going any further until you answer them.

If you believe yes, tell me exactly how:
And how does not immediately communicating with the NCA from 903 to 937 figured as evidence of Rumsfeld being in on it?

(3rd request)

So why are you asking me a question based on a rule-set?
Exactly what ruleset are you talking about here?  Or was this a typo?
If there were never any opportunities to shoot a plane down how is it that Rumsfeld is guilty of allowing a plane to hit pentagon?
PS do you believe Bush needed to or was required to consult with Rumsfeld first in order to issue the order to shoot the plane down?

(4th request)