Oh, so it's only you that can be rude and accuse innocent people of horrific crimes, and that's ok? However, if someone gives you some attitude, "You can't be bothered." Nevermind the fact I trashed your entire argument with logic and reason, you can just use your instant dismissal card. "I can't be bothered." Obviously, and that's apparent. You can't be bothered to do accurate research.
This entire Rumsfeld argument is just a massive red herring. No matter what Rumsfeld knew or didn't know, it wouldn't have prevented 9/11. There is no way anyone here can know what was being said in this intelligence meeting. If they were discussing the attacks and he was getting caught up, then that is the SOP. No one makes decisions without having all of the information, and if he's getting briefed by his intelligence committee on the beginnings of the biggest terrorist attack on American soil, then he shouldn't be answering his phone. He should be getting his facts. I wanted to mention this, did you say he was in an intelligence meeting? How was he doing nothing, or not asking questions, if he was in an intelligence meeting? Shouldn't that be EXACTLY what he should be doing? He got informed that there was an attack\accident and then he got a hold of his intelligence to get details. Sounds good to me. He might not have known what was going on since no one was really able to tie it together until after the second impact. Even the news people thought it was an accident up until the second hit.
I'm not talking to Rumsfeld or Bush, therefore I'm not being rude. Why don't you tell me what your best argument or rebuttal is, while discussing the topic and not the poster, please.
I never said it would prevent 9/11. Planes could have intercepted flight 77, or the Pentagon could have been evacuated, possibly saving lives at the Pentagon. It was a prepared briefing and Rumsfeld himself admitted he didn't know what was going on until after the Pentagon was hit. I'm talking about after the second hit.
Fighters were scrambled to intercept 77 at 9:27, and was just barely too late. The order could have, and should have come sooner.
Actually the Langley QUIT fighters were scrambled at 0921, however (1) they didn't actually get airborne till 0930, and (2) their orders were to head to the North of DC to intercept what they thought could still be AA11 inbound. NEADS didn't find out about a target heading towards DC (AA77) until just as it was circling the Pentagon. The fighters didn't arrive over DC until ~0950. Not to mention, but this stage, it wouldn't have mattered. Even if, and that's a big IF, AA77 had been shot down, whether it crashed into the Pentagon and killed 150 people, or crashed into DC, it likely still would have killed 150 people, except it could have been an office building, a school, residential, a busy highway...
Exactly. So I'm not sure why other people are trying to use it as their argument, like because now we know what could or could not have happened, it makes sense why these leaders behaved so oddly when they couldn't have known?
Certainly the planes could have taken off sooner than they did. Rumsfeld has a post but he wasn't in it. What may or may not have happened isn't the issue. The fact that the top two in the military chain of command weren't coordinating a response.
Oh, and what's that based on?... Does launching a ready plane 'any time' mean that the pilot is sitting in the cockpit, engine running, sitting on the runway fully armed, 24/7 just waiting for the CiC's call?
Because he's the top of the military chain of command? Are you thinking that the commander in chief doesn't have the authority to issue scramble orders?
Does launching a ready plane 'any time' mean that the pilot is sitting in the cockpit, engine running, sitting on the runway fully armed, 24/7 just waiting for the CiC's call?
No.. That takes time. I mean he can issue the orders any time he wants, certainly sooner than the orders were eventually issued.
Nope, and nope. NORAD are in charge of scrambling fighters. They operate the only standby fighters in the US. It takes time from pilots on active stand by to get their aircraft prepared, taxied and ready to take off. The orders? The fastest way to get them are through the chain of command, which is NORAD, or in the case of 9/11, NEADS. The generals are in charge of it. The "CiC", the SoD, they're just politicians, typically when politicians get involved, (*)(*)(*)(*) slows down. People who are trained to do the job, do the job, not some clueless (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) who was voted there.
So neither leader could issue orders faster than they were issued, because the way it is was fine, and the fastest method, and they are trained for it? Yet in actuality what we saw disproves you. The orders did not go out in time, there were long delays, the chain of command failed, NOBODY was trained for THIS situation, and even the 9/11 commission report cites lack of coordination and communication as the major factor for what went wrong that morning. Whether or not something could have been done or not is beside the point. The fact remains that neither leader were at their post. Why was Rumsfeld's phone ringing off the hook? What would people want from him at a time like this if he's not meant to be involved?
Exactly. Again, they're just politicians. The military generals, who are, and always have been in charge on the air defence of the US, did their job to the best of their abilities on the morning of 9/11. It's their job, what they trained for. You think they have to ask the president to do their job? Of course bloody not. Who is CiC or SoD doesn't mean crap. If you listen to the USNORTHCOM tapes like I have, you'd know this. Which is why I said they did the best they could, given the circumstances. You think the communication failures would have vanished just because Bush or Rummy picked up a phone? Oh, that was "beside the point"? So then why are you making dumb assed comments like "Jets would have scrambled faster", or "Orders would have come quicker", if they are "beside the point"? Or are they now "beside the point" because you're flat out wrong in your understanding of what the CiC or SoD actually do? I'm not saying what either of them did that morning was even remotely what "should" have happened, what I am saying is what ever they did, or didn't do, made no *******n difference that morning. And because it made no damn difference, your failed argument for LIHOP is, well, failed. At the end of it all, the NEADS were trained to do their job, the best they could, on the morning of 9/11. They are not required to ask permission from Mr President politician just do to their jobs. They were in control. Bush and Rummy would have known that.
That's not mutually exclusive. I already told you this. They did not train for these circumstances. Not my argument. I stated that there should have been coordination. The 9/11 commission report stated there was a lack of coordination. One hand didn't know what the other was doing. That's why I'm saying they should have stepped in to lead. Don't claim the way things were sufficient when the evidence shows the way things were, failed in absence of leadership. Who knows because it didn't happen. Why were they calling Rumsfeld? You didn't answer that question. Because you are insisting I find a way they could have saved the day. Apparently the lack of their attention to the matter is insignificant without this. So then great! You agree with me! That's what I'm trying to say! Their activities weren't the right ones. They wouldn't know what could or could not be done, in absence of the hindsight you enjoy now. Bush and Rummy would have known they were trained and able to do a job they were never actually trained or able to do in the first place? They didn't bother finding out the details of what was going on. Why not?
There's an ironic comment. Does your argument contain any more substance than: They let it happen on purpose because they didn't do what "I" think should have been done now that I have access to all the information that they should have had access to. Do you have any actual evidence that they "let it happen on purpose"? Because that's a pretty tough thing to prove given the complexity of exactly what happened...
Who knows. I don't. All I'm saying is it didn't matter. It didn't affect anything on that day. Therefore, your claim of LIHOP is wrong.
Like he said, it's beside the point. The point is the intent. He's trying to convince you of intent using innuendo and speculation. He has no proof of intent, that's why his argument is beside the point.
If you've been following this as it developed like I have, you'd know that USNORTHCOM didn't even exist on 9/11.
NEADS recordings, but when they were released to the public they were under the ownership of USNORTHCOM, so the title of the recordings, if you need to find and download them, are USNORTHCOM tapes.
