911: Window of Exposure

[. .]

Last edited Sun Mar 24, 2013, 07:28 PM - Edit history (1)

see pre-edit for content

[LARED]

1. Brilliantly

Last edited Sun Sep 9, 2012, 11:49 AM - Edit history (1)

ridiculous notion as to how things work in real world.

Is this a parody of a truther or is Poe's law in play?

[AlwaysQuestion]

76. "Brilliantly ridiculous notion," eh wot?

Oh, LARED, don't tell me you're still doing duty and flogging the same ol' horse. I used to get so annoyed with you but once I realized what you were up to, I knew that debating 911 with you would be much akin to trying to nail jelly to a wall--one enormous waste of effort.

Still, your stick-to-it-ness must be acknowledged--albeit from my point of you not in the most favorable light. There's much to be said about the theory of randomness but most assuredly that theory cannot in any way be in effect in the case of 911 for any number of reasons most recently put forth by .. - and many, many other knowledgeable contributors preceding him. I'm hoping against hope that logic and the law will eventually prevail oh dreamer that I am.

[freshwest]

2. . . .

Last edited Tue Sep 11, 2012, 10:48 AM - Edit history (1)

[. .]

3. Link to where?

These are my words, freshwest.

"Window of Exposure" is exactly what it sounds like, and it is what I chose to name the thread.

[Politicalboi]

4. Let's not forget the

2.3 Trillion that went missing at the Pentagon on 09/10/01 as announced by Donald Rumsfailed. He even allowed the Pentagon to get attacked. Doesn't it make you feel safe when our defense building doesn't defend itself or us with 35 minutes notice. And NOBODY is held accountable. But hey I'm just a "truther". Why would I expect answers for their failure. To ask questions is admitting your a "truther". How un-patriotic of us. And I better accept their blurry video of a "plane" hitting the Pentagon. Who here would like to be tried on that kind of evidence? But we are the "nuts".

They saw how we just stood by as they stole the 2000 election. How so many people didn't see Bush for the fool that he is. How the media gave Bush a pass on his stupidity.

[dixiegrrrrl]

5. I don't expect much outcry when attempts are made to steal this election, either.

More than a few states are having court battles over the voting process, and will carry those issues all the way to the Supreme court. The POST election ballot fight is already a given.

[MercutioATC]

6. O.K. As requested by the OP, I am here at this gathering of loons.

What are you proposing to tell me that I haven't shot down scores of times on DU2?

[. .]

7. Please read the original post.

And with all due respect, please make a sincere effort to understand it before you reply.

It is based entirely on Donald Rumsfeld's own account of his actions, and it is as the story stands, officially recorded.

[MercutioATC]

8. So, your proof of conspiracy is that Rumsfeld adhered to a course of action that YOU determine

to be damning after the fact?

Frankly, you can't even hold a candle to some of the CTers that used to be here. Your musings are those of a paranoid amateur.


You invited me here. If there are any direct questions that you have that my experience can shed light on, I'll be happy to respond. Otherwise, I'd advise you to give up on trying to convert me. You don't even have the basic understanding of the components of the situation to mount an argument that would appeal to anybody remotely informed.

[. .]

9. MercutioATC, I asked you to

MercutioATC: "You don't even have the basic understanding of the components of the situation..."

Please explain.

[. .]

10. MercutioATC, I asked you to please make sure you understand the post...

...before responding, and I am trusting that you won't turn this into a wasted effort.

SO...I will ask you directly, if you feel Rumsfeld's actions were acceptable under these circumstances.

[MercutioATC]

11. "Acceptable"? By what standards?

If the expectation is that he had the sole responsibility to protect us and was omniscient, no, his actions would not have been "acceptable" under these circumstances.

If the situation is viewed from a realistic position at the time of the event, there were things that could have been handled differently but his actions were consistent with most of the other people/agencies involved. They failed to respond in an "acceptable" manner because they never envisioned having to deal with this particular situation and the existing system's procedures didn't encourage any sort of timely response.

Make Rumsfeld the bogeyman if you like. Kindly accept my departure from the discussion if that's all you've got.

[. .]

12. So by sharply increasing the probability for murder...

...you would suggest that it was merely incompetence, or...?

[MercutioATC]

13. You do realize that "murder" has a legal definition...

...that varies by state law?

That aside, my experience leads me to believe that the 9/11 attacks were successful to the degree that they were more due to muliiple systems failures than anything else.

I also do not believe (due to my experience) that any single member of the government or the government as a whole or any combination of the existing members of the government either "let it happen on purpose" or "made it happen on purpose".

[. .]

14. So why do you suppose a person...

...would willfully, deliberately, and directly cause an increase in the probability for mass murder?

I don't expect you to answer, Mercutio. I'm not going to put you on the spot. I appreciate the fact that you had an honest go at it, and that you didn't disrespect the situation by trolling.

[JosAle]

37. .

"They failed to respond in an "acceptable" manner because they never envisioned having to deal with this particular situation"

Didn't you know there were drills going on, even the day of 9/11? (I thought you were ATC)

[JosAle]

38. Bump for the ATC's answer

bump

[MercutioATC]

39. Of course I know there were exercises that day.

The military does that quite frequently.

The planes on 9/11 hadn't been obviously hijacked. They stopped communicating with ATC (which happens sometimes) and turned off course (which also happens sometimes, although rarer). On any given day there are dozens of aircraft with which we lose radio contact. Rarely, it's due to a catastrophic electrical failure and those planes then turn off course, looking for a place to land. We don't typically shoot them down.

It's easy to Monday-morning-quarterback the military response on 9/11, but if you don't understand how the system works, you really don't have a framework from which to form opinions.

[JosAle]

40. So why did you say that?

If you knew there were drills, and you even say that they happen quite frequently why did you say:

"They failed to respond in an "acceptable" manner because they never envisioned having to deal with this particular situation"

[JosAle]

41. Yep, when you look at Rumsfeld like this, it looks real bad

I've been researching ever since I saw this thread, and I can't find anything that would take away from what is being said here.

I mean it looks reeeeeeally bad.

[MercutioATC]

42. Did you not read the body of my post?

Pre-9/11, we regularly lost radio contact with planes. Occasionally, they'd even markedly deviate from their flight plan. That had been the situation since the beginning of aviation. Not once had any of these planes been used as they were on 9/11.

We were prepared for an overt attack. We were prepared do deal with a known hijacking. We were not prepared for what happened on 9/11.

[JosAle]

43. What does that have to do with Rumsfeld??

???

Answer that.

After you answer that, if you want to say right now that you aren't aware that drills had taken place where hijacked planes were directed at buildings, go ahead and say it. But you better think first about whether you wanna commit yourself to that.

[MercutioATC]

44. Absolutely nothing.

As I recall, I was responding to a question that YOU asked.

As for your last paragraph, I don't care much what you "want". I stand by my assertion, as an insider who knows the system, that we were simply not prepared to deal with the events that transpired on 9/11 and that it is my informed belief that neither Rumsfeld nor anybody else in our government "made" or "let" this happen.

[JosAle]

45. You just proved my point.

You're saying we were unprepared again.

[MercutioATC]

46. If your point is that we were unprepared, yes, I'm agreeing.

I don't know that my agreement constitutes "proof", but yes.

[JosAle]

47. My point is there were drills for hijacked planes into buildings

How can you justify saying it was "never envisioned having to deal with this particular situation"?

[MercutioATC]

48. As I said, you don't understand the mechanics of the system.

The military exercises to prepare for hijacked planes were one small part of the process. First, the planes had to be identified as hijacked. Then, the information had to be passed up the chain of command. Finally, the decision would have to be made to use military aircraft to deal with the situation.

Each of these steps involves multiple people making multiple decisions...and none of these people are operating under the assumption that these planes have been hijacked and are going to be flown into buildings.

You're using one piece of information to attempt to paint an entire scenario. I'm telling you that there are a lot of other pieces of information that go into that scenario.

[JosAle]

49. Did they think the hijackers may take the passengers out to breakfast?

When that second plane flew into that second building, surely you wouldn't try to say that Rumsfeld didn't understand that one or more of the thousands of planes still flying may pose an exact same danger, right?

[MercutioATC]

50. 4,500 other planes in the air at the time, roughly.

You can bet that at least a dozen of them were out of radio contact at any given moment.

Again, you have no understanding of the mechanics of the system (that's not a slight directed at you, almost nobody does) and that lack of understanding makes you believe that the system is simpler than it actually is.

[JosAle]

51. You're only making the case stronger

That Rumsfeld and Bush needed to make contact to either remove the NCA from legal authority or to prepare to direct as legal authority.

Man, how could this have happened? If it was just one person falling behind I could see it. But not ALL of them at the same time and with NO explanation.

Seriously wtf?

[. .]

15. To be clear...

I understand the subject is better left unanswered, than to be muddled by a respondent who may honestly lack the capacity to read and to process the information he or she hopes to argue against, or to build upon. And it is certainly better left unaffected by those who would feel some pathological need to "troll" upon being cornered.

If there is any plus side to be found, it is that such people cannot help but to reveal themselves with their words, and that all posts made by such a person cannot help but to be viewed through such revelation.

I would ask any person, on any thread, to please stop and think before you post...and please do not attempt to hinder or to deny truth.

[. .]

16. Calling out William Seger: I am responding to your post, here.

I'm unable to post on that thread thanks to an offhand remark I made. So...

You said: "This assertion is ridiculous and it's easy to show otherwise: Rumsfeld's behavior that morning was not the "only possible way to achieve the (presumed) goal" and it certainly was not the best possible way. The most direct way to achieve the presumed goal would have been to order a stand-down))"

If you would please stop and think, you would understand that such an act would greatly increase the probability for exposure, and it would direct blame toward the giver of such an order.

You said: "But even if Rumsfeld being "out of the loop" would have made any difference (which is itself disproved by what actually happened)"

It makes all the difference in the world as it relates to the probability for further murder. Please refer to the Department of Defense directive, defining the National Command Authority.

You said: "...then the best thing for Rumsfeld to do would have been to be completely out of the loop, i.e. not even in his office and completely out of communication"

Again, please refer to the National Command Authority: "...or their duly deputized alternates or successors..."

If you are suggesting that another person would have taken Rumsfeld's place, I would again assert that the probability for exposure would have been greatly increased.

You said: "...and with a credible excuse for it..."

I would ask you to please recall that we had immediate communication in 2001, just as we have today.

[William Seger]

17. Debates with "truthers" usually devolve into pointless repetition

You asked for my comments and I told you precisely why your logic is faulty. You apparently still don't understand why, but that's not my problem. You asked what was dubious about your premise and I told you, even though it doesn't matter given the faulty logic it attempts to support, and your response here amounts to "Nuh-uh!" Again, it's not my job to convince you, so I don't see where's there's anything left to discuss, especially since disagreement seems to drive you to being obnoxious.

[. .]

18. So you cannot argue against it. There's a very good reason for that.

Thanks for participating.

[William Seger]

19. But I did "argue against it" and all you could do was reassert the same dubious premise

So you cannot repair your failed argument. There's a very good reason for that: It's broken top to bottom -- it's an invalid conclusion based on a dubious premise. Thanks for wasting everyone's time.

[. .]

20. Please look upward in the thread.

I responded to each point in your argument, and it seems you refused my post without addressing it.

[William Seger]

21. Why?

There no "there" there.

> You said: "This assertion is ridiculous and it's easy to show otherwise:
> Rumsfeld's behavior that morning was not the "only possible way to achieve
> the (presumed) goal" and it certainly was not the best possible way. The
> most direct way to achieve the presumed goal would have been to order a
> stand-down))"
>
> If you would please stop and think, you would understand that such an act
> would greatly increase the probability for exposure, and it would direct blame
> toward the giver of such an order.

So, you claim that Rumsfeld's behavior undeniably points to his guilt but some other behavior would "greatly increase the probability for exposure"? At least we can find some humor in your "just so" argument, but the point I actually made was that "Rumsfeld's behavior that morning was not the 'only possible way to achieve the (presumed) goal'" which you claimed. Saying that you think a stand-down would make him look even more guilty doesn't actually refute my point.

> You said: "But even if Rumsfeld being "out of the loop" would have made
> any difference (which is itself disproved by what actually happened)"
>
> It makes all the difference in the world as it relates to the probability for
> further murder. Please refer to the Department of Defense directive, defining
> the National Command Authority.

Again, you miss the point. Any order to shoot down planes should have come from Bush to Rumsfeld, but there is no evidence that Bush made any attempt to contact Rumsfeld to pass down any such order, so your claim that Rumsfeld was deliberately avoiding handling any such order is neither substantiated nor particularly relevant to any non-moot issue. Instead, Cheney gave a shoot-down order directly to military commanders in the PEOC bunker (after UA93 had already crashed!), and he didn't inform Rumsfeld about it until later. Rumsfeld says he was "out of the loop" because he wasn't engaged by either Bush or Cheney. Even though it's central to your argument, you merely imply without any proof whatsoever that any such attempt to contact Rumsfeld would have failed. Your claims aren't just unsubstantiated; they simply have nothing to do with what actually happened that morning.

> You said: "...then the best thing for Rumsfeld to do would have been to be
> completely out of the loop, i.e. not even in his office and completely out of
> communication"
>
> Again, please refer to the National Command Authority: "...or their duly
> deputized alternates or successors..."
>
> If you are suggesting that another person would have taken Rumsfeld's
> place, I would again assert that the probability for exposure would have been
> greatly increased.

LOL, now you're not only dodging my point but you're refuting yourself and then offering nothing in rebuttal to youself except another "just so" assertion. Again, if Rumsfeld was deliberately trying to avoid his duty to defend the country, it's pretty obvious that the best way to do that would have been to avoid even being at the Pentagon that morning.

> You said: "...and with a credible excuse for it..."
>
> I would ask you to please recall that we had immediate communication in
> 2001, just as we have today.

Not, for example, if he had been on a commercial flight, as other officials were that morning.

It appears that, in your haste to rationalize a preconceived conclusion, you haven't really given this much serious thought.

Oh, and by the way, you're still trying to dodge the fundamental problem with your argument, that "affirming the consequent" is a logical fallacy. Attempting to divert attention from that fatal flaw by arguing about details of your premise doesn't really get you off the hook for that.

[. .]

22. Let's go...

You said: "So, you claim that Rumsfeld's behavior undeniably points to his guilt but some other behavior would "greatly increase the probability for exposure"?

This is exactly what I'm saying. And I would ask you to please understand the difference between exposure as it relates to the project itself versus exposure as it would relate specifically to Rumsfeld. In case I haven't made myself clear, I would put forth that Donald Rumsfeld provided himself as a tool for such a project to realize its greatest probability to administer death, balanced with a minimal probability for outright exposure. It is that simple.

You said: "but the point I actually made was that "Rumsfeld's behavior that morning was not the 'only possible way to achieve the (presumed) goal' which you claimed."

The claim is absolutely correct. Please understand the (presumed) goal, which is a successful administration of death combined with a minimal probability for exposure.

You said: "Saying that you think a stand-down would make him look even more guilty doesn't actually refute my point."

Once again, please understand the (presumed) goal.

You said: "Any order to shoot down planes should have come from Bush to Rumsfeld, but there is no evidence that Bush made any attempt to contact Rumsfeld to pass down any such order, so your claim that Rumsfeld was deliberately avoiding handling any such order is neither substantiated nor particularly relevant to any non-moot issue."

Beyond reminding you that the NCA is a joint power, I will ask you directly, if you believe Rumsfeld was unaware of his position in the NCA and/or was unaware we were under attack.

You said: "Instead, Cheney gave a shoot-down order directly to military commanders in the PEOC bunker (after UA93 had already crashed!), and he didn't inform Rumsfeld about it until later."

Please offer an explanation, if you can, as to why Cheney would issue an order that he absolutely knew was illegal, and why he would choose to do such a thing before contacting the person who was legally able to direct the military (and in fact, the military did NOT act upon the order, as it was illegal).

It seems we are now discussing a second decision-maker whose actions would deliberately increase the probability for further murder.

You said: "Rumsfeld says he was "out of the loop" because he wasn't engaged by either Bush or Cheney. Even though it's central to your argument, you merely imply without any proof whatsoever that any such attempt to contact Rumsfeld would have failed."

Let me get this straight. You're suggesting that, had a need arisen to engage an aggressive plane, we would wait until AFTER such a need would present itself before creating a line of communication between the NCA. (To drive this point home, I would ask you to examine the comments made by the commanding general at NORAD, who stated to the 911 Commission, it was his understanding that ANY order involving the potential for a shootdown would require Rumsfeld's direction--"even for a derelict balloon".

Once again, to make sure I'm clear on your position: despite all the ways time was working against us, are you suggesting that we would add further time to allow for communication between the NCA, after the need was to present itself? And if such a need presented itself during the period it has been found that Rumsfeld's whereabouts were unknown?

It is an inescapable conclusion, friend: we keep increasing the probability for further murder.

You said: "Again, if Rumsfeld was deliberately trying to avoid his duty to defend the country, it's pretty obvious that the best way to do that would have been to avoid even being at the Pentagon that morning...if he had been on a commercial flight, as other officials were that morning."

So you're suggesting that a person who would assume his duties would somehow innocently drop the ball, and therefore contribute to a successful achievement of the (presumed) goal? Perhaps I'm missing what you're saying here.

You said: "Oh, and by the way, you're still trying to dodge the fundamental problem with your argument, that "affirming the consequent" is a logical fallacy. Attempting to divert attention from that fatal flaw by arguing about details of your premise doesn't really get you off the hook for that."

We are talking about the facts of a specific case, involving decisions and actions made by human beings, and we are within a realm where we are discussing reasonable doubt as it relates to assertions regarding the human beings in the case. No "out" exists that would negate the need to examine the evidence.

[William Seger]

23. No, if you're just going to keep repeating the same faulty argument, let's stop

... at least until you answer these two questions: Do you understand why "affirming the consequent" is a logical fallacy? Do you understand why your argument is an example of that fallacy?

I've explained why your premises are dubious but it just doesn't matter whether or not you agree when your argument is invalid on its face.

[. .]

24. If you're unable to argue, please say so.

I understand that you would attempt to mute all facts specific to this case, assign a foreign classification to the framework of the argument, then declare that there "may" be a fault with the argument.

Is it possible to continue discussing the facts, or has it become too much for you?

[William Seger]

25. I'll take that as a "No" to both questions

... and let's add not understanding the distinction between an assertion and a fact to the list.

That's a wrap.

[. .]

26. So once again, you're unable to argue

...and once again, I thank you for participating.

[William Seger]

27. But if I'm the last one to post, then I win?

Your argument was challenged many posts ago as being fallacious, for rather obvious reasons. If you can't either attempt to explain why it isn't fallacious or attempt to fix it or just replace it with an argument that isn't fallacious, then there's nothing left to debate. Apparently, the best you can do is reassert it, but you think I am the one who is unable to argue?

[. .]

28. The record will stand, friend. Our words are here to be read.

You attempted to argue, but found you were unable to protect your stand on this subject. So it is on this subject, that you've chosen to abandon such attempts, rather than to abandon your stand.

Nothing personal, and I sincerely thank you for your participation.

[William Seger]

29. A variation of "affirming the consequent"

... is "assuming the consequent": If A, then B. Assume B, therefor A. Here's a silly example I recently saw:

If Rumsfeld is guilty, then his objective that day would have been to do exactly what he did.

Rumsfeld's objective that day was to do exactly what he did.

Therefore, Rumsfeld is guilty.


You're welcome, and I'm glad you appreciate my participation.

[. .]

31. So...

Let me ask you...when you said this:

William Seger says: "Sorry, but you haven't explained why he "deliberately" chose a course of inaction that made him look like a confused old man who had his head up his ass that morning.

What, specifically, caused you to choose such a description for Rumsfeld?

[LARED]

30. You are one funny guy/girl. I appreciate the humor. nt

[zappaman]

32. I too find this guy funny!

Funny sad though...not funny haha.

[. .]

33. So resume from where William Seger fled

Anyone who understands the facts of this case is welcome to step up.

[William Seger]

34. "Argumentum ad nauseam"

Argumentum ad nauseam is the logical fallacy that something becomes true if it is repeated often enough.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_nauseam

[zappaman]

35. "Argumentum ad nauseam"

Would be a great name for a truther group.
11 years later and the same old bullshit just keeps getting regurgitated no matter how many times it is shown to be wrong.

[zappaman]

36. Seger fled?

Anyone can read this forum and see for themselves that Seger did not flee and addressed your "arguments" more than sufficiently.
Sorry, but you've got nothing and it clearly shows.
Maybe this isn't the right website for you?
I'm sure there are sites where you won't be challenged on your "theories"...

[stevenleser]

52. Every single point you raise is speculative, "I think this is what would have happened"

There is a basic issue you are not addressing. It was the same issue at Pearl Harbor, Taranto, and various similar situations.

When you are surprised by a tactic of an enemy, the response tends to go very badly. That is why militaries spend a lot of time, effort and resources trying to surprise each other and spend lots of time, effort and resources at trying not to be surprised.

That being said, again look at what happened at 9/11

1. Planes were hijacked.
What normally happens when planes are hijacked? The planes land, the hostages are released or are rescued by armed commandos on the ground, etc. These situations are not normally resolved by air-to-air combat.

2. It wasn't immediately clear what was happening.
Sure, the hijackers mistakenly indicated on one plane that it was hijacked and some others might be (atta's infamous 'we have some planes comment'), but the other planes werent immediately identifiable as being hijacked. It wasnt until the second plane hit the towers that it was clear that you had multiple planes being hijacked and their intention was to hit buildings with them.

3. By the time it was clear that you had multiple planes being hijacked and their intention was to hit buildings, it was all pretty much over. There was certainly no opportunity to scramble jets or have any other meaningful military response.

[. .]

53. Please do the homework required to understand this subject

((stevenleser: "By the time it was clear that you had multiple planes being hijacked and their intention was to hit buildings, it was all pretty much over. There was certainly no opportunity to scramble jets or have any other meaningful military response."))

Wrong. It was approximately one hour between the second plane hitting and the establishment of contact between the NCA. It was approximately one hour and twenty minutes between the second plane hitting and the official account of any attempt to establish rules. It is a matter of record.

With all due respect, I must ask any potential participant to understand the most basic facts of this subject before attempting to engage.

((stevenleser: "It wasnt until the second plane hit the towers that it was clear that you had multiple planes being hijacked and their intention was to hit buildings with them."))

And we are generously starting at the second plane hitting, despite a long list of very compelling reasons to start the clock at the first plane hit.

((stevenlesser: "When you are surprised by a tactic of an enemy, the response tends to go very badly. That is why militaries spend a lot of time, effort and resources trying to surprise each other and spend lots of time, effort and resources at trying not to be surprised."))

So you would put forth that it was a very prolonged state of surprise that caused Rumsfeld to behave in such a way for such a length of time.

[stevenleser]

54. Not only have I done the homework, I'm former military (US Air Force) I understand this a lot better

than you do.

[. .]

55. Our words are right here. Anyone may read them.

Take care.

[stevenleser]

56. No care necessary. All of my opinions are very public. Just google me. nt

[. .]

57. Further notes...

It should be said, a clear goal for the aftermath was to attack privacy rights, and to recondition our views about such rights, in order to dissolve perceived resistance points within an emerging digital technology. The least of these perceived concerns undoubtedly were not financial.

Once again, for the action itself, the goal was to realize a maximum probability to successfully administer death, combined with a minimum probability for outright exposure. A maximum chance to successfully administer death was a preface to maximum legal response (loss of rights), while minimal probability for outright exposure played an even greater role: a backfire with such a plot would not only work against the intended new environment, by placing widespread focus upon political corruption (imagine that), but it would also likely remove the chance to legally destroy rights for generations to come.

So "success" is defined as a balance between these two factors, with failure being an effective end and reversal to such subversion.

The greatest probability for such success--using both descriptors, jointly or separately--could not be realized without the containment of the National Command Authority.

[William Seger]

58. Looks like further nonsense

You have yet to establish that anything Rumsfeld did that morning had any impact whatsoever on the events of that day, nor have you established that his behavior was the best way to accomplish what you claim was his goal. You just keep asserting it over and over and over, while dodging the issue of the obvious "assuming the consequent" fallacy in your argument. What's the point of continuing to post if that's all you've got?

[. .]

59. Post 22 remains unanswered.

It is directed at you.

[William Seger]

60. LOL, post 23 remains unanswered

As entertaining as it might be to dig through some of your assertions in post 22, first I need to be sure that you aren't simply trying to dodge the fundamental flaw in your argument: Do you understand why "affirming the consequent" is a logical fallacy? Do you understand why your argument is an example of that fallacy?

Your logic is invalid so your argument fails, even without digging through your unsubstantiated assertions about Rumsfeld's behavior and motivation. Nonetheless, I have pointed out that your premises are dubious and your only response was to reassert them and assure me that you are correct. Much worse, you have failed to show how Rumsfeld's behavior had anything whatsoever to do with the events of that morning, so your speculations about his motivations aren't just unsubstantiated; they're completely pointless.

In short, your argument is broken, top to bottom, and either you just can't see that or you think ignoring the problems and declaring victory is your best option at this point. Either way, it's getting harder and harder to take you seriously.

[. .]

61. and...

((William Seger: "As entertaining as it might be to dig through some of your assertions in post 22"))

Your attempts have been quite entertaining.

((William Seger: "first I need to be sure that you aren't simply trying to dodge the fundamental flaw in your argument: Do you understand why "affirming the consequent" is a logical fallacy? Do you understand why your argument is an example of that fallacy?"))

You're avoiding an examination of the information by saying the information needs to be examined. Please pardon me for not playing along.

If the subject weren't so serious, perhaps I'd get a kick out of it with you.

[William Seger]

62. Say what?

> You're avoiding an examination of the information by saying the information needs to be examined.

That doesn't make enough sense to respond to. Surely your reading comprehension can't be that poor? I've repeatedly pointed out that your "information" consists of nothing but unsubstantiated (and rather silly) speculations and assertions that are clearly dubious, offered in support of an argument that is obviously fallacious. If you are really incapable of responding to those points, then my advice would be to stop bumping the thread.

By the way, the reason I post on this group is that I think the subject is too serious for idiotic bullshit. Bullshit never did anyone any good.

[. .]

63. And by the way...

((William Seger: "You have yet to establish that anything Rumsfeld did that morning had any impact whatsoever on the events of that day"))

That's the point, William.

[William Seger]

64. WTF?

You've accused Rumsfeld of actively avoiding his responsibilities as Secretary of Defense in order to maximize the number of murders that day, even though you admit that the behavior you're accusing him of had no such effect?

And that's "the point?"

[. .]

65. "had any impact whatsoever" was bolded...

...in case you didn't see that.

[William Seger]

66. Are you even reading what I write?

Maybe some bolding in this post will help:

> You've accused Rumsfeld of actively avoiding his responsibilities as Secretary of Defense in order to maximize the number of murders that day, even though you admit that the behavior you're accusing him of had no such effect?

I wouldn't have thought it possible to make your invalid and unsound argument even worse, but you've succeeded.

[. .]

67. Yes, and it turns out we agree.

You state that it is unestablished anything Rumsfeld did had any impact whatsoever on the events. I completely agree. It is the point of the thread.

[William Seger]

68. You flatter yourself to claim this thread has a point, but...

Let's recap:

What you were claiming in the OP and since is that Rumsfeld willfully and deliberately did things that morning that would have prevented communications from the President down to the military, and you claim that he did those things with the intent to maximize the number of murders.

Your humorous attempt at an argument to support that contention was based on hand-waving assertions that what Rumsfeld did that morning was exactly what was required to satisfy your hand-waving claims about his goals, and you claim that the only explanation for that is that those must have indeed been his goals.

We've determined that you don't understand why that's an "assuming the consequent" fallacy, but it gets much worse: You haven't even bothered to establish that anything he did that morning would have actually made him unavailable if Bush had tried to call him; you just assume it, and it's obviously a very dubious assumption if he had his phone with him at all times. Furthermore, your assertion that what he did was the best way to accomplish your claimed objectives is limited by your own imagination, whereas if Rumsfeld actually had those objectives, he might have been smart enough to come up with something better -- as I mentioned (and you ignored), perhaps getting on a commercial flight.

So, you really don't have any argument that's debatable, but now you also admit that those things you say he did in the OP actually had no impact on what went down that morning. Which means that your argument isn't just invalid and unsound; it has no reason whatsoever for even being conjured into existence in the first place, because it attempts to explain stuff that didn't happen.

I don't think this is the most ridiculous argument I've seen here, but seriously, that's not a record you want to shoot for.

[. .]

69. Come on...

((William Seger: "You haven't even bothered to establish that anything he did that morning would have actually made him unavailable if Bush had tried to call him"))

In The Name of God, please think of what you're saying. You are once again suggesting that communication would be established AFTER the need would arise to engage an aggressive plane. WHY would the risk for death be so sharply increased in such an otherwise meaningless manner?

((William Seger: "it's obviously a very dubious assumption if he had his phone with him at all times."

Absolutely wrong. Learn the facts. Examine the statement made to the 911 Commission, by the commanding general of the NMCC, that said: "For half an hour, we could not locate him".

If you would have bothered to process the original post, you would know that he did not have his phone with him at all times.

((William Seger: "Furthermore, your assertion that what he did was the best way to accomplish your claimed objectives is limited by your own imagination"))

The scope of possibility is exactly what it is. Logic will lead any person to the same conclusion.

You may continue trying to show otherwise, and I would welcome you to do so.

((William Seger: "whereas if Rumsfeld actually had those objectives, he might have been smart enough to come up with something better -- as I mentioned (and you ignored), perhaps getting on a commercial flight.))

It was not ignored. If Rumsfeld were to be on a commercial flight, someone else would be placed in command. You should know that.

[William Seger]

70. Once more round the Truther Merry-Go-Round

Again and again, you would like to pretend that arguing over details will save your faulty argument. If you understood why it's faulty, you'd see why it can't be salvaged like that. As explained in the Wiki article I referred you to, "If A, then B; B, therefore A" is not a valid inference even if you could convincingly demonstrate that B is true, which you certainly haven't. The reason it's fallacious is that you haven't established that A is both necessary and sufficient for B to be true, i.e. you haven't established that "If and only if A, then B." If B can be true even if A is false, as is clearly the case for your argument, the condition for valid logic is not met.

So, in each post, I will remind you that your logic is inherently fallacious and that you have made no attempt to fix it. It seems you just want to keep reasserting your premises, which you can't prove because they involve speculations about motives, and insist that they should be taken seriously unless someone can disprove them to YOUR satisfaction. There's a name for that logical fallacy, too: argumentum ad ignorantiam (meaning argument from ignorance, or in this case a lack of contrary evidence). That is a well-known tactic for attempting to shift the burden of proof, so I'll also keep reminding you that you are required to prove your premises -- nobody is required to disprove them.

So, discussing the silliness of your premises does not in any way let you off the hook to either fix or retract your faulty argument, but nonetheless, let's discuss the silliness of your premises:

> In The Name of God, please think of what you're saying. You are once again suggesting that communication would be established AFTER the need would arise to engage an aggressive plane. WHY would the risk for death be so sharply increased in such an otherwise meaningless manner?

Say what? Are you suggesting that communication would be established BEFORE "the need would arise"? Or what? And as nearly as I can parse that last sentence, you seem to have the cart before the horse again, begging the question. But no, what I'm "suggesting" is exactly what I said: You have not demonstrated that anything Rumsfeld did that morning actually had any effect whatsoever on Bush's ability to contact him to pass down orders. And since Bush apparently didn't make any such attempt until after UA93 had crashed, it should be clear to a rational person that you never will be able to demonstrate that, either. Your response doesn't address either of those points. But here's the real absurdity: You talk about him making "a few calls" and going ahead with a scheduled intelligence briefing as if that were suspicious behavior, conveniently overlooking the fact that Rumsfeld was in his office for those. He was in his office -- the first place Bush would have tried to reach him -- from before the second WTC hit until after the Pentagon hit. So what you're claiming really amounts to saying that it's so incredibly suspicious that Rumsfeld was in his office that the only possible explanation for such suspicious behavior is that he was deliberately trying to maximize the number of murders? It's an amazing argument, but not for good reasons.

> Absolutely wrong. Learn the facts. Examine the statement made to the 911 Commission, by the commanding general of the NMCC, that said: "For half an hour, we could not locate him".

Learn the facts, huh? The fact is, the 9/11 Commission said it was not able to determine if Rumsfeld had a pager or cell phone with him when he left his office to go to the crash site. You'd like to believe he didn't but you can't prove it, yet you claim it as a "fact"? Don't try to pull that and then tell me to "learn the facts." I don't know if he did or didn't, but I do know the issue is moot since Bush didn't try to contact him. And even if Bush had tried to contact him then, during that 20-minute or so window between the Pentagon hit and UA93 crashing, it was way too late for any orders through Rumsfeld to have any effect.

> The scope of possibility is exactly what it is. Logic will lead any person to the same conclusion.

Really? I've explained a couple of times now what I mean by a "valid logical inference." Maybe you should take a crack at sharing your definition, since we definitely don't seem to be talking about the same thing.

[. .]

72. Let me get this straight.

Under a design that was specifically meant to pit a lack of reaction time against the preservation of life--using hijacked airliners as the method of destruction--you would put forth that a line of communication between the National Command Authority would be acceptably established AFTER the need was to present itself, and you would put this forth despite the fact such an arrangement could only increase the risk for death in an otherwise absolutely unnecessary manner.

[William Seger]

73. "such an arrangement"?

Could you rephrase whatever you're trying to say in a less convoluted way? It's hard enough to follow your "logic" without such obtuseness.

[. .]

74. Specially for you:

A passenger airplane hit a crowded building. Minutes later, another passenger airplane hit another building. At any moment, more airplanes could fly into more buildings.

Only the NCA could provide the command necessary to stop such a plane from hitting another building--and any moment, until all planes had landed, any plane could be at any stage of an aggressive movement. It is that simple, William.

[William Seger]

75. And your point is... ? (n/m)

[zappaman]

71. "The scope of possibility is exactly what it is. Logic will lead any person to the same conclusion."

Oh, the irony!