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.
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?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?
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?
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?