Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
July 25, 2014, 04:19:12 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Did Rumsfeld intentionally thwart defenses to let the plane hit the Pentagon?  (Read 17187 times)
OzmO
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20499


Take Money Out of Politics!


View Profile
« Reply #300 on: May 07, 2012, 11:41:37 AM »

It is very interesting to watch.  I'm beginning to wonder if it is your subconscious.

I wonder the same thing when it comes to you avoiding questions lol, but i usually come to conclusion you just fear reality.  


Quote
Check.

Check.  In other words, at that very moment, and for every succeeding moment throughout, as all planes were being ordered to land, any plane could be at any stage of an aggressive movement.  This cannot be misunderstood under any circumstance.

I agree somewhat but I don't completely agree.  It wasn't a certainty at the moment.  Other possibilities existed.  

Quote
Please provide any evidence to show he sought or received such information.

No need to too, its moot in the context of Rumsfeld intentionally allowing      a plane      to      hit it,        because he's not, nor was ever the field commander, Larry Arnold was.

Quote
Not sure what you're getting at.  Are you saying he didn't associate the events with an attack?  Because his own words will show otherwise.

No what i am saying is, what i wrote is some of what parts of the government knew at 903.  You base most of arguments on after the fact conclusions thinking everyone knew everything at 903 which has been implanted in your subconscious to point that now its reality to you.  

Quote
Let's concentrate on this for a moment.

No lets not.  You still have some questions to answer.

So basically you can't show that Rumdfeld is guilty of allowing a plane to hit the pentagon.

1 down 5 to go.


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?

So why are you asking me a question based on a rule-set?

Exactly what rule-set 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?  Answered:  Jack cannot show it

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?
________________________ ________________________ ______________________
Quote
We are talking specifically about what they were able to do with respect to commercial airliners, the vehicles that were providing a method for the attack that was occuring at that very moment.

There wasn't any doubt about the law, as drills had made perfectly clear, including to the highest authority within NORAD, that the direction of Donald Rumsfeld would be required for ANY ruleset that would include an ability to destroy within its flowchart--'even for a derelict balloon'.

This was another tool that was absolutely required for the job.  Because it was required, it exists.  Because it exists, we can examine it.

For the most part completely incorrect and for the most part completely ignorant on your part.    

PS:  I would love to show you why.

PPSS:  there's the word rule-set again, are you being sarcastic again Jack and therefore won't take responsibility for your comments?

Report to moderator   Logged
Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3533


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


View Profile
« Reply #301 on: May 08, 2012, 11:51:19 AM »

For the most part completely incorrect and for the most part completely ignorant on your part.    

It is completely true, correct, and not ignorant, friend.

PS:  I would love to show you why.

So would many people.  But for all the geniuses on this board, who would otherwise ignorantly attempt to degrade a person for having such beliefs, not a single one has been able to stand against it.

And so far we have examined only one person in this story.
Report to moderator   Logged

OzmO
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20499


Take Money Out of Politics!


View Profile
« Reply #302 on: May 08, 2012, 04:56:00 PM »

It is completely true, correct, and not ignorant, friend.

So would many people.  But for all the geniuses on this board, who would otherwise ignorantly attempt to degrade a person for having such beliefs, not a single one has been able to stand against it.

And so far we have examined only one person in this story.

Sorry, but your argument is false and incorrect.

When you have the courage to answer my questions i will happily show you why.

The funniest part about this, is you won't even define the "magical rule set".

The second funniest part, is you don't really want to know why its false and incorrect.

The third funniest part is now you are trying to play the victim.

Its not about beliefs Jack.  It's about facts.  Your facts (your assertions or what you claim to be facts) are mostly incorrect, and you most of your arguments are based on unproven premises.

Its like you are closing your eyes and saying NO NO don't show me why because it will conflict with my beliefs, beliefs which are incorrect and based on unproven premises.

This right here:

Quote
We are talking specifically about what they were able to do with respect to commercial airliners, the vehicles that were providing a method for the attack that was occuring at that very moment.

There wasn't any doubt about the law, as drills had made perfectly clear, including to the highest authority within NORAD, that the direction of Donald Rumsfeld would be required for ANY ruleset that would include an ability to destroy within its flowchart--'even for a derelict balloon'.

This was another tool that was absolutely required for the job.  Because it was required, it exists.  Because it exists, we can examine it.

Is so far off base and untrue its unbelievable!  Cherry picking at its finest!

I think, if i remember it right, I even told you a few times when we first talked and you, like most times, ran away or ignored it.

It doesn't take a genius to see it either.   Wink

Sorry i Just keep on finding funny stuff about your whole argument....

It seems like the foundation of your argument here is that because a ruleset wasn't established immediately after 903 by Rumsfeld it shows he is guilty of being in on this conspiracy.  And you won't even define this magical ruleset, one that, if established on the fly wouldn't change a dam thing and one that would have most possibility resulted in an accidental shoot down AND you refuse to answer any questions regarding your arguments.

Pure comedy dude.  Even genesis would be ROTF!
Report to moderator   Logged
Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3533


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


View Profile
« Reply #303 on: May 08, 2012, 06:02:39 PM »

The funniest part about this, is you won't even define the "magical rule set".

How about this...

Permission to engage population-bound, improperly triangulated, confirmed hijacks that refuse warning shots.

If that's not safe enough for you, we can refine it to wherever you feel comfortable.  Just let me know.

And if you are unwilling to believe that any preemptive clearance should be given by Donald Rumsfeld, as you feel his keen tactical input -- 'as an administrator and not a field commander' -- must be given in such a situation only as it arises, then we will simply maintain an open line of communication to field and expedite potential requests
Report to moderator   Logged

OzmO
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20499


Take Money Out of Politics!


View Profile
« Reply #304 on: May 08, 2012, 07:03:27 PM »

How about this...

Permission to engage population-bound, improperly triangulated, confirmed hijacks that refuse warning shots.

If that's not safe enough for you, we can refine it to wherever you feel comfortable.  Just let me know.

And if you are unwilling to believe that any preemptive clearance should be given by Donald Rumsfeld -- as you feel his keen tactical input 'as an administrator and not a field commander' -- must be given in such a situation only as it arises, then we will simply maintain an open line of communication to field and expedite potential requests.
Congratulations Jack!

You answered 2/6 of the questions i have repeatedly asked you!  (don't expect me to go much further on this until you have answered all 6 and be prepared to answer the follow up questions before we go even further  Wink)



What if the radio has been disabled, the pilots killed, but the hijackers subdued?

What if 2 or more planes are in the same area but in a dark zone?

What if the pilot refuses to shoot because he hadn't been trained previously to follow that type of order?

What if the plane is flying over a densely populated area that could result in more death after it's shot out of the sky?

What if the passengers are in the process of subduing the hijackers?

What if there is a problem confirming the plane is in fact hijacked?

What constitutes a confirmed hijack?


It should be noted, i am not in the military and never have been nor am i a pilot............  meaning i bet a fighter pilot could come up with some more "questions"

And you expect this to be worked out immediately at 903 and because it wasn't its a smoking gun to a conspiracy............as if you "know their (everyone from Rumsfeld to fighter pilots) jobs better then they do"

PURE COMEDY  Grin



 
Report to moderator   Logged
Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3533


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


View Profile
« Reply #305 on: May 08, 2012, 08:52:36 PM »

Quote
And if you are unwilling to believe that any preemptive clearance should be given by Donald Rumsfeld, as you feel his keen tactical input -- 'as an administrator and not a field commander' -- must be given in such a situation only as it arises, then we will simply maintain an open line of communication to field and expedite potential requests.
Report to moderator   Logged

OzmO
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20499


Take Money Out of Politics!


View Profile
« Reply #306 on: May 08, 2012, 09:50:31 PM »



And if you are unwilling to believe that any preemptive clearance should be given by Donald Rumsfeld -- as you feel his keen tactical input 'as an administrator and not a field commander' -- must be given in such a situation only as it arises, then we will simply maintain an open line of communication to field and expedite potential requests.
Still so terribly incorrect.

I take it these questions rule out the magical rule set then?   Smiley



What if the radio has been disabled, the pilots killed, but the hijackers subdued?

What if 2 or more planes are in the same area but in a dark zone?

What if the pilot refuses to shoot because he hadn't been trained previously to follow that type of order?

What if the plane is flying over a densely populated area that could result in more death after it's shot out of the sky?

What if the passengers are in the process of subduing the hijackers?

What if there is a problem confirming the plane is in fact hijacked?

What constitutes a confirmed hijack?




So you failed already in 2 of my 6 questions to you.  I am seeing now why you didn't want to answer them.  

But  sorry you will need to answer the rest of them and i will more than happy to explain why in detail you are so incorrect.

4 more to go!

Love your pattern:  Each time you get debunked you just role over to another angle.  lol

Its funny most of you argument is based on this ruleset, so now it's about Rumsfeld being available for an open line of communication.  Is that it now?  Is that the smoking gun?

What are you gonna switch to when that one gets debunked?


....................

Still smiling about this...So that's it now isn't it? Rumsfeld is guilty of being part of a conspiracy because you think he wasn't available for an open line of communication that was never needed.

Right?

Report to moderator   Logged
Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3533


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


View Profile
« Reply #307 on: May 09, 2012, 11:26:43 AM »

OzmO, you aren't reading and processing the information you are trying to argue against, which really cheapens a conversation.

Beyond all other inconsistencies, you are once again attempting to argue that it was inconceivable any actions or orders could have been generated at approximately 0903, and you are attempting to argue that Donald Rumsfeld came to such a conclusion without executive or military communication.
Report to moderator   Logged

OzmO
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20499


Take Money Out of Politics!


View Profile
« Reply #308 on: May 10, 2012, 08:46:48 AM »

OzmO, you aren't reading and processing the information you are trying to argue against, which really cheapens a conversation.

Beyond all other inconsistencies, you are once again attempting to argue that it was inconceivable any actions or orders could have been generated at approximately 0903, and you are attempting to argue that Donald Rumsfeld came to such a conclusion without executive or military communication.

You are missing the boat again. 

I am not arguing that there were or were not any actions that could have been generated at 903.  I am simply saying that that our government was doing what it was trained to do at every level and that there is NOTHING in the way of REAL evidence to indicate that Rumsfeld is guilty of thwarting our defenses to allow THE PLANE to hit THE PENTAGON.

Further more EVERY attempt by you to show other wise has failed miserably and has been soundly debunked.

You refuse to answer questions of your arguments and you refuse to respond to my debunking and crushing of your arguments.

You got anything else?  Or are you left with only attacking my approach to things?


Now the funny part:  When I expose these "any actions or orders could have been generated at approximately 0903" that you suggest as pure ignorance, impracticality and nativity, you refuse to acknowledge it and just ignore it.

Report to moderator   Logged
Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3533


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


View Profile
« Reply #309 on: May 10, 2012, 02:25:54 PM »

Now the funny part:  When I expose these "any actions or orders could have been generated at approximately 0903" that you suggest as pure ignorance, impracticality and nativity, you refuse to acknowledge it and just ignore it.

I'm not sure what you mean to say here.
Report to moderator   Logged

OzmO
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20499


Take Money Out of Politics!


View Profile
« Reply #310 on: May 11, 2012, 07:05:22 AM »

I'm not sure what you mean to say here.

In other words, when I show you the nativity of your rule set arguement you don't address it, when I tell you, you are completely incorrect you don't simply answer the questions I have been asking you over and over so you can get my explanation of why you are incorrect and just as you did in the past you ignore it and move on to another angle. 

Facts:  your argument about the rule set is dead

Facts:  your argument about Rumsfeld being available for open communication is incorrect. 

Facts: the other Arguments or assertioins in the last few posts that I called incorrect are still incorrect.

Facts:  you have not shown any evidence to link Rumsfeld with a conspiracy indicating that he deleberatley thwarted our defenses to allow the plane to hit the pentagon

Facts: you have digressed into basic CT'er tactics by suggesting silly shit like "a plane" and "it" as some subconscious thing about my beliefs.

Facts:  you make statements about things and when I ask questions abut them you run from them or try to claim your weren't  serious and you were just being sarcastic, like with the rule set thing but then later bring up the ruleset in an  argument. 

"if" this is the argument you have been refining, I am sorry, but it's only going to work on idiots. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3533


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


View Profile
« Reply #311 on: May 11, 2012, 05:52:56 PM »

Quote
Now the funny part:  When I expose these "any actions or orders could have been generated at approximately 0903" that you suggest as pure ignorance, impracticality and nativity, you refuse to acknowledge it and just ignore it.

Quote
In other words, when I show you the nativity of your rule set arguement you don't address it, when I tell you, you are completely incorrect you don't simply answer the questions I have been asking you over and over so you can get my explanation of why you are incorrect and just as you did in the past you ignore it and move on to another angle.

I want to know what you're trying to get at here.

Report to moderator   Logged

OzmO
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20499


Take Money Out of Politics!


View Profile
« Reply #312 on: May 11, 2012, 07:25:47 PM »

I want to know what you're trying to get at here.



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

Here's where you brought up RULESET


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.

I was so right lol


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



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

Rule set?

(3rd request)


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.


I guess this is where you are claiming to be "sarcastic"  instead of just answering the DAM question which i have asked 3 times at this point.   Roll Eyes


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?


Still avoiding the question.


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?


And still avoiding the question....


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.

Still avoiding the question like a very rude person.  (normally i would say rude MF'er  Smiley)

the above was from page 11 only  lol


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?



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?


And still yet again avoiding it.



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?


See a pattern here?  lol

The questions result from a sarcastic post that you took literally.

What a matter with you?  you can't read?  and then you have the nerve to accuse me of skimming over your garbage?  You can't even answer a simple question I had been asking over and over and over and over and over and over and over ?


And if the questions about the "ruleset" are based on sarcasm from you explain why.


Still can't man up.


So why are you asking me a question based on a rule-set?
Exactly what rule-set are you talking about here?  Or was this a typo?


Again.....


So why are you asking me a question based on a rule-set?

Exactly what rule-set are you talking about here?  Or was this a typo?


And over and over.....

You are unaware of the most basic facts of this case, including the function of the National Command Authority, and your questions show that.

Still can't answer.....  instead you try and deflect.

Roll Eyes

If that's the case the questions should be easily answered.  

As well as the follow up questions.  

Sad Jack, thought you were better than this.  


still avoiding them....

How about this...

Permission to engage population-bound, improperly triangulated, confirmed hijacks that refuse warning shots.

If that's not safe enough for you, we can refine it to wherever you feel comfortable.  Just let me know.

And if you are unwilling to believe that any preemptive clearance should be given by Donald Rumsfeld, as you feel his keen tactical input -- 'as an administrator and not a field commander' -- must be given in such a situation only as it arises, then we will simply maintain an open line of communication to field and expedite potential requests

so finally on page fucking 13 you define your stupid rule set i expose for what it is:


What if the radio has been disabled, the pilots killed, but the hijackers subdued?

What if 2 or more planes are in the same area but in a dark zone?

What if the pilot refuses to shoot because he hadn't been trained previously to follow that type of order?

What if the plane is flying over a densely populated area that could result in more death after it's shot out of the sky?

What if the passengers are in the process of subduing the hijackers?

What if there is a problem confirming the plane is in fact hijacked?

What constitutes a confirmed hijack?


So what to you do?  What you normally do  RUN to anther angle instead of manning up and address my response:

by posting this:

Quote
And if you are unwilling to believe that any preemptive clearance should be given by Donald Rumsfeld, as you feel his keen tactical input -- 'as an administrator and not a field commander' -- must be given in such a situation only as it arises, then we will simply maintain an open line of communication to field and expedite potential requests.

Look at how many times I asked you to define the rule-set Jack!  10?  12?....................13 fucking times!

You are being one weak ass piece of shit.  You are being dishonest.   If you can't continue in a reasonable manner I am through with you.  

PS:  You know what i fucking meant when i said:

Now the funny part:  When I expose these "any actions or orders could have been generated at approximately 0903" that you suggest as pure ignorance, impracticality and nativity, you refuse to acknowledge it and just ignore it.

Quote
In other words, when I show you the nativity of your rule set arguement you don't address it, when I tell you, you are completely incorrect you don't simply answer the questions I have been asking you over and over so you can get my explanation of why you are incorrect and just as you did in the past you ignore it and move on to another angle.









Report to moderator   Logged
Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3533


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


View Profile
« Reply #313 on: May 11, 2012, 10:10:32 PM »

OzmO.  When you say nativity...is that what you're trying to say?
Report to moderator   Logged

OzmO
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20499


Take Money Out of Politics!


View Profile
« Reply #314 on: May 12, 2012, 09:10:55 AM »

OzmO.  When you say nativity...is that what you're trying to say?
Roll Eyes
Ask me another 13 times and I will consider answering.
Report to moderator   Logged
Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3533


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


View Profile
« Reply #315 on: May 12, 2012, 06:07:06 PM »

OzmO, defining rulesets that didn't take place is nothing more than a trip into the unknown.  That's all it can ever be.
Report to moderator   Logged

OzmO
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20499


Take Money Out of Politics!


View Profile
« Reply #316 on: May 12, 2012, 06:33:23 PM »

OzmO, defining rulesets that never took place is nothing more than a trip into the unknown.  That's all it can ever be.


 Roll Eyes

Yet......

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

It was important enough for you to use as part of your argument.  Now that you have been shown your ignorance you are back peddling lol

Ha Ha Lame. 

Do you really want me to dig up all your arguments about the rulesets from the first time around and embarrass you more?

Consider your answer carefully, or go back and try and remove them all  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH

Report to moderator   Logged
Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3533


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


View Profile
« Reply #317 on: May 12, 2012, 07:03:59 PM »

We cannot define a ruleset that didn't take place, we can only agree that a ruleset would have been fully possible and expected.

Quote
I am not arguing that there were or were not any actions that could have been generated at 903.

So we once again have to ask why this would be true.  We must ask why Donald Rumsfeld would commit himself to actions that would increase the chance for further death, while avoiding actions that would decrease the chance for death.

Was it incompetence, or...?
Report to moderator   Logged

OzmO
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20499


Take Money Out of Politics!


View Profile
« Reply #318 on: May 12, 2012, 08:47:02 PM »

We cannot define a ruleset that didn't take place, we can only agree that a ruleset would have been fully possible and expected.

So we once again have to ask why this would be true.  We must ask why Donald Rumsfeld would commit himself to actions that would increase the chance for further death, while avoiding actions that would decrease the chance for death.

Was it incompetence, or...?

Wrong again.
Report to moderator   Logged
Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3533


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


View Profile
« Reply #319 on: May 12, 2012, 10:02:14 PM »

We can't focus on imaginary orders and communication.
Report to moderator   Logged

OzmO
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20499


Take Money Out of Politics!


View Profile
« Reply #320 on: May 13, 2012, 06:59:07 AM »

We can't focus on imaginary orders and communication.

Yet you use those as part of your argument.   Roll Eyes
Report to moderator   Logged
Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3533


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


View Profile
« Reply #321 on: May 13, 2012, 06:37:17 PM »

OzmO, it is the lack of such that is the argument.
Report to moderator   Logged

OzmO
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20499


Take Money Out of Politics!


View Profile
« Reply #322 on: May 13, 2012, 06:57:40 PM »

OzmO, it is the lack of such that is the argument.

You can't argue a lack of something if you aren't willing or able to define and detail it and use the definition and detail to prove it would be the prudent and proper thing to do in the context of the issue.....something you have failed to do over and over.

 Also this argument of yours would have to with stand to questioning something that has shown you to be a coward.

So if this is the extent of your argument, I have misjudged you.

Jack, seriously, I am not just trying to insult you here, honestly are you in middle school?  because that is the level of your argument.  Beucase it translates to this:

"I am right and you can not ask any thing about it unless those questions support my argument and I also have the right change my story/angle anytime I want
"
Report to moderator   Logged
Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3533


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


View Profile
« Reply #323 on: May 13, 2012, 09:38:00 PM »

We must use ONLY what can reasonably be known, and not drift from that.
Report to moderator   Logged

OzmO
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20499


Take Money Out of Politics!


View Profile
« Reply #324 on: May 14, 2012, 07:49:45 AM »

We must use ONLY what can reasonably be known, and not drift from that.

 Roll Eyes


I have misjudged you.

Jack, seriously, I am not just trying to insult you here, honestly are you in middle school?  because that is the level of your argument.  Beucase it translates to this:

"I am right and you can not ask any thing about it unless those questions support my argument and I also have the right change my story/angle anytime I want
"
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!