911: Window of Exposure

[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.