Protocol changed june 2001 and restored after 9/11. Why?

I'll offer some speculation. He simply "appeared" on camera to establish his alibi in case the poo hit the fan. He could say, "Hey...it wasn't me...I was on the lawn....blah, blah, blah".

 

I did say that in my first post hfd. Go read it again.

 

He admits himself he went to his office. And this is where he sat there not answering his phone.. Many important leaders were wondering where Rumsfeld was.. Rumsfeld cites NOTHING that he did prior to 9:37...... These are all facts.. Whether or not choosing to not be on the operational floor for the crisis and just in a removed physical location of a very big building and not answering his phone was the total extent of this making himself scarce, or if such agenda also involved components of twisting shut the miniblinds of the windows, locking the door and going under the desk as well, in order to justify my use of the word "hiding", I suppose would be an exercize in speculation, as would anyone's guess about what he was actually doing while the towers burned.

What do you suppose would be the best verb to associate with Rumsfeld for this half hour before 9:37?

 

You didn't.. You made your opinion about Rumsfeld's stint as an EMT clear, you did NOT say about the other time period.. That's why I asked you what your opinion about the OTHER period was.. You've still not even answered that.

It was only just a straw man..

I NEVER condemned him assisting the injured.. Although, I'm skeptical he was of much assistance, and am dubious about his real motives for being on that lawn, the point of condemnation for me is CLEARLY dereliction of duty. Providing first aid there was NOT his post.

 

Let's try this again hfd, and I quote.

 

Like I already said MULTIPLE times... I KNOW what your opinion is about his playing EMT.

I was asking you what your opinion was for the OTHER period.

If you don't want to answer that then fine, but don't sit here pretending like I'm missing something when I'm not.

 

Very odd that the protocol needed to be changed twice, before and after 9/11 (since it was good enough since the seventies). Why change it 90 days prior after 30 some odd years? Were they expecting something perhaps?

 

Your own links show it was changed more recently than "30 years prior".

And your own links further show - as was pointed out to you several times - that the changes in 2001 allowed for better response in case of attack, and increased the ability of the military to deal with 9/11-type threats.

The reason why it was changed after the fact is obvious - pretty much everything was changed, so that an incompetent administration could seem like they were "doing something" to fix the oversights that had allowed the attack to occur in the first place.

Since you have been presented with those 3 points already, and continue to persist in this belief, how are we to conclude anything other than that you are intentionally ignoring the truth to troll us?

 

Right, right. Another meaningless coincidence, no doubt. 3 months prior to 9/11, to slow down the whole response time thing and then reinstate it after the fact. I got it.

 

A protocol was changed. Defense secretary Rumsfeld was at breakfast, went outside to see the damage/ help, shortly there after he raised the defense readiness condition to defcon 3. From reading this thread these actions have been interpreted as both normal and abnormal behavior for the defense secretary. I think people need to be careful to try to make conclusions that are not supported by rumsfelds actions on the morning of 9/11. It should also be noted that the president and his advisers were being regularly briefed on the threat environment and changing protocols in response to these threats in not implausible.

 

No...I'm referring to the protocol was changed some 90 DAYS PRIOR to 9/11.

 

Another concoted hystyerical story to amuse and titilate the puerile minded in our midst.

 

Concocted?? <<<MOD EDIT:Insult>>>

 

You evidently never got past primary school or is the word concoted just too difficult for you to comprehend.

It has the same meaning as the concotedd 9/11 stories that you throw around, like confetti, on this site.

 

The protocol changes are circumstantial evidence. Forgive me as there are so many different facets of the total conspiracy theory, but why does altering these protocols indicate the gov't was involved?

 

You skipped over a major part.. After breakfast was over, around 9 a.m, he got informed that both towers were struck and that America was under attack, and made himself scarce and did nothing until after 9:37 a.m.

Lack of action and availability during a crisis situation makes the conclusion for dereliction of duty quite easy.

Indeed! His apathy and lack of concern about the unfolding attacks is abnormal for ANYONE, let alone the guy who's supposed to be the head of the Dept. of Defense.

Malfaescense, e.g. not wanting to interfere in the attack in order to get the new pearl harbor he wrote about makes his behavior suddenly make sense, and have some sense of purpose behind it.

Still, nobody else has offered any other explanation for such a unique attitude of indifference about the situation.

 

Again, for now the third time, as has been pointed out to you previously, the change 3 months prior to 9/11 sped up the response time, not slowed it.

 

No explanation is needed until you prove there was any "indifference"

All you have proven is that, for about 37 minutes, he was not involved in any reported functions.

 

Now for the third time, why the need to change it after 30 plus years, and then back again?

 

B*******T!

He was in the chain of command, and he left his post.

He placed himself and the security of the United States at risk.

You talk like you know the man personally, I think you know jack**** about
him and are only regurgitating some BS you overheard in a public restroom.

Nobody in his position and in their right mind would have walked around the impact area.

 

I asked candy what made Rumsfeld exceptional.. Maybe some example traits, accomplishments etc..

No surprise he couldn't think of anything.

 

you DO realize his 'post' was inside a burning building,right?

And you ALSO realize it was his job to make sure those under him were okay,right?

monday morning quarterbacking......gotta love it!

 

That is the complete oppositte of responsiveness, and that is proven by lack of response!

Hence why not you, anyone else on this forum, the 9/11 heresay report or even Rums himself can't name anything he did during that period.

The only people to be in a position on the matter, e.g. the national security advisor, people from the joint cheifs of staff, official counterterrorism czar, God only knows how many people down at the DoD etc.. they can all only tell you they couldn't contact him and/or didn't know where he was.

When you have absolutely NOTHING to indicate concern or interest, then you have indifference, and apathy, and when you add on being "out of the loop" and not at your post, you have dereliction of duty to boot. How can you have interest or concern in what was going on, and yet STILL have no idea what was going on.. EVERYBODY nearly, around the world, knew it was an attack with planes, because THEY all had concern.

Not Rumsfeld though... Thought it was a bomb, wondering what the hell that was, at 9:37 and emerging from his office.. Finally he gets to the crash site, somebody informs him it was a plane... Nevermind others knew there was a hijacked airplane headed for DC WELL BEFORE it hit, now Rumsfeld learns, well I'll be dammed, it was a plane.. Then later, Rumsfeld finally says, perhaps he should be doing something.. Something big is going on.. Two twin towers burning thanks to planes and more hijacked aircraft didn't clue him in no.. Then he only gains the situational awareness about what is happening, when he finally strolls in, late as hell I might add, to the NMCC at well after 10:00 a.m.

So yeah.. Thoroughly proven.. This is all, of course according to Rumsfeld himself I might add, whose testimony is basically a confession to the crime of dereliction of duty.

Yes that as well. He wasn't involved with anything. But he should have been.

 

Yeah burning after 9:37.

Coordinating a crisis response actually was his job, not playing EMT.. Nevertheless, his job was SECDEF which along with CiC forms the NCA that is operating leadership of the ENTIRE United States military apparatus.

But yes he should have cared about his personnel in the Pentagon which is why he should have helped them out BEFORE they got injured and killed.

If Rumsfeld actually did stuff to deal with an unfolding attack against the United States, and the stuff turned out to be not the best decisions, but he still tried, then yes that is MMQBing.. But if the guy sits there doing NOTHING, not even so much as answering his phone, that's simply pointing out him not doing anything or doing his job.

If a cop sits there watching some woman getting raped and beaten unconscious, but does NOTHING but stand there the whole time, you'd say he wasn't doing his job.. This is acknowledgement of a fact, not MMQBing.. Maybe after the fact the cop might try to resucitate the woman.. Mitigate the damage he allowed and did nothing to stop.. I would hardly give him accolades for that.

 

Only a small portion of the building was on fire or damaged, you do "realize" there are other places he could have moved to or been taken to.

Generals don't run around the battle field helping the wounded and dying.

No quarterbacking here, just my observation and opinion about a situation, where someone in the command structure of the defense system of the United States failed miserably. He didn't do his F****** job!

You can make excuses until hell freezes over, and it still won't change a thing.

His behaviour could suggest he knew there were no more incoming aircraft, and would have pointed to the possibility of a conspiracy had it been investigated