911: Window of Exposure

[. .]

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.