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

Yeah right, a 70 year old guy running around doing what?

What did he do... put his hands on a stretcher (photo op) while 1st responders were carrying it.

You people will come up with any ole baloney to try and persuade others into believing the "official" gov BS.

Yeah, I'd give the ole F***** a pass... a pass to prison.

 

That's a fairly fascist statement.

 

Rumsfeldt actions between 9:00am and 9:37am on the morning of 9/11 prove that a conspiracy exists no more than it proves that he was suffering from constipation.

 

Naa!, if it's anything, it's a fair statement.

 

Have you got an explanation for Rumsfeld's behavior or not? Why do you think the SECDEF was like pretty much the only guy in the entire WORLD who didn't want to know more about what was happening?

 

Photo ops and establishing his alibi (just in case).

 

Yeah, but they do set a precedent, for him being the 1st Sec of Defense to walk around oblivious while the United States is under attack.

All you Ozians want to talk about logic except when comes to the actions of Rumsfeld, the SS and G W Bush in the minutes following the attack upon our nation.

Their nonchalant behaviour in those moments are historical record, and what I would call an embarrassing moment for this great nation and it's Citizens.

 

How is it "fascist"? He's not saying Rumsfeld should be dictator. These victims were only injured because Rumsfeld LET that happen.. He does not deserve accolades for damage control after the fact. He left his post. I'm surprised he wasn't disciplined.

As for the EMT photo op, as actually helpful as one thinks he was or wasn't isn't even relevant; the fact remains it is him and Bush, the guy sat there with the pet goat book, the guy more concerned with addressing the nation than anything else, that were in charge of heading the military response to the attacks, which was of course, an urgent and time sensitive matter.

Your NCA appeared to be buying time for the terrorists, you people should want to know why.

 

No...not really, it's pretty much in black and white.

Then again you may not be of the intellect to have read the docs and understood what they did.


Maybe you should go back to the game and pop another cold one.

 

The truth would change the power structure of this nation, I think that is the last thing these folks want. Most have made their livelyhood these last 10 years because of what happened on 9/11.

It's akin to them walking in a park and seeing a woman being raped then taking some photos and selling them. They would justify it with comments like
it's a free country and making money isn't a bad thing.

 

It is kind of like MMQBing.. You're looking back on Sunday's game, when with just minutes to go in the fourth quarter, and your team need a touchdown to win this game, and in the middle of the play, the quarterback puts down the ball, so the defense takes it, and then the quarterback goes to the sideline and grabs a stack of towells and starts wiping sweat off the player's faces.. He decided to be towell boy during that occasion instead of quarterback. Then when we're all like WTF why were you being towell boy instead of quarterback when you needed a touchdown and they're all like just leave the guy alone, you're MMQBing.

 

I do not have an explanation for what Rumsfeld was doing that is based on anything other than speculation. The point I was trying to make is that using Rumsfelds actions on the morning of 9/11 to conclude that the US gov't was involved in the attacks is just speculation. I do not understand how any objective person can think that Rumsfelds actions constitute ACTUAL proof of a gov't conspiracy. BTW I think Rumsfelds conduct in the lead up to and execution of Operation Iraqi Freedom might very well may constitute war crimes. I am NOT a fan of Rumsfeld by any measure.

 

Right there with you.

 

Can you speculate ANY POSSIBLE reason at all that would not be for a nefarious purposes?

Just think real hard..We should do some brainstorming.

My problem is that no matter how hard I try, I can't imagine a non-malevolent reason Rummy would run off to his office, ignore his constantly ringing phone and make himself out of the loop AFTER learning about TERRIBLE attacks occuring against his country.

LIHOP on the part of Rumsfeld at least explains what he did that morning PERFECTLY.

I can't think of anything else it could possibly be.

So given the fact that it would be speculative, can you possibly think of something or not?

Who are you responding to? Who argued this?

 

It reminds me of when Bush 1 was asked where he was when JFK was assasinated...he said he didn't remember.

I was 6 years old and not really cognizant of the seriousness of the event, but I remember exactly what I was doing when it was anounced over the schools loud speakers.

 

What War Crime are you talking about?

As far as his actions; tending to the wounded??? Sounds pretty human to me; not sure it wasn't brave. I can listen to the argument that he should have been somewhere else during the events but the contemptable morons who feel that this was just another day at the office and people are going to react like trained robots is flat out stupid.

 

The only thing stupid are those who make excuses for Rumsfelds actions after the Pentagon was blown up.

Knowing we were being attacked and the possibility that more attacks could occur, why would he casually walk around the strike zone afterwards?

Did he know something?

 

Skeptics got to admit those actions by Rummy were, at the very least, slightly suspicious. How could any sane person not think that?

 

Some seem to think it was a normal reaction for someone in the chain of command for US armed forces.

The SS not moving the prez also brings about suspicion in my mind.

His where abouts had been published several days before 9/11, yet the SS took no action to move or conceal him.

Again it makes me think someone knew something.

 

I agree, their actions are evidence to prior knowledge. That's just logic and common sense.

The skeptics are so fixed on their position that they will deny any evidence suggesting the contrary. I always find it funny they call us '9/11 deniers'!

 

I guess this question will join the list of unanswered questions of 9/11. Nobody knows why the protocol was changed just before AND after 9/11. I'll file this one under the disappearing, underground planes that nobody can confirm pile.

 

I've already explained:

The change after 9/11 was obvious, as many protocols were changed due to the attacks. Almost everything dealing with response to terrorist attack was changed. The federal government created a new cabinet post, FFS.

The change three months before was not "after 30 plus years," your own link says it was only 4 years, and it was in order to streamline response.

Do you know what the word "streamline" means? It doesn't seem that you do, otherwise you wouldn't keep arguing that a change in protocol to streamline response to a potential attack would be done by people trying to get away with said future attack.

Yet another 9/11 denier lying.

I already showed you in this thread he went to his morning CIA briefing, which was scheduled for 9:30, early. And I already linked to this page showing that.

The counterterrorism czar mistakenly said he was in their video briefing at 9:10am. Above link shows that as well. He didn't, therefore, say he couldn't contact him.

So, which is it? Have you not really read up on this, or are you intentionally lying?

So file charges. Call the FBI. Have you done this?

Dereliction of duty shows only dereliction, not traitorous intent.

 

First of all, if you want to brazenly accuse somebody of lying, you'd best not lie yourself when you tell them that.. Makes you come across a bit hypocritical.

You NEVER linked to ANY page in this thread until now.. You are lying.

Now, you did already say this, yet I clearly refuted that.. You dropped out of that discussion, only to simply pop back in however many pages later going on about how you've been over that.. You've left some things hanging here in this thread, and some direct questions unanswered (strange coming from someone always whining about that very thing), so let's revisit where you and I left off however many pages ago:

BLD: "The account given by numerous sources says that he received a note interrupting his official breakfast meeting at 8:46, but everyone in the meeting assumed it was an accident. The accounts next say he went into his morning CIA briefing right about the time the second plane hit. By the time the plane hit the Pentagon at 9:37, he was there and working actively on the situation, again according to all accounts."

You said don't ascribe to malice what can be explained by incompetence.. Yet you've not explained it by incompetence.. Just claimed it must have been. When I asked you to explain how incompetence could make someone so detached as to simply not give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about the terrible tragedy in New York, and you replied with this passage here, which did not explain your incompetence theory..

Rather you switched up your argument here.. Now it's the he was prevented from doing anything about the 9/11 attack argument.

Ok, new angle, fair enough, but then I asked you to explain how any of that could "prevent" him from paying attention to the 9/11 attack.. Common sense dictates that a real time and unprecedented attack of such horrific magnitude currently taking place in real time ought to have priority, and therefore would prevent routine business such as a daily briefing, NOT the other way around. So you've left that one hanging.

You also incorporate the lie that they were "working actively on the situation" before the 77 collision occurred. Even so much as say EVERY account says this! And yet I asked you to name even ONE account and you didn't.. There's stuff about talking about missile defense and such like general policy issues, and loads of stuff under the sun EXCEPT the CURRENT attack taking place.

Maybe now you'll want to quote us any accounts of that?

And are you intentionally cherrypicking?

The fact is there were loads of important people that were expecting and wanting attention and response from Rumfeld.. I like how you brushed that under the rug, and refused to address that point, because one of the people I mentioned doesn't belong in the otherwise long list.

I'll admit I should have left Clarke out of it, but maybe you can address the point now.

I don't answer stupid loaded questions, especially those based on a false dichotomy.

No I've not done this, but I didn't ever argue he should now be criminally charged, so don't really care.

Yet strictly out of curiosity, what's the phone number that you dial to file criminal charges against a former politician? I imagine it would be ringing off the hook! Don't really answer that; the question's a bit rhetorical.. You don't have to pass your bar exam or even get into law school to know that criminal complaints are filed in writing and submitted to a judge, not the FBI.

Yet no other possible explanation was given, save the two of yours you've failed to support.

By the way, does this mean you acknowledge there was dereliction of duty?

 

The 9/11 Commission Report remains 100% on all major points.

As it was.
As it is.
As it always will be.

 

I think it has the date right, and something about bearded cave dwellers.