911: Window of Exposure

[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.