It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Rumsfeld Photo OP.

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 03:42 AM
link   
Hi, I'm new to ATS but have been reading along for years, great site, there are some very sharp people here.

Here's my question, I remember very well the events on 9/11. I was at work in Maryland and watched for hours and hours straight as the events unfolded, I tuned in on TV just after the first plane struck the tower. I remember back in high school learning about the structure of government and how safeguards were built in allowing for continuity of our political structure, later in the Army I learned more about how our government protects it's leaders.

SO, on Sept. 11th, why did I see SecDEF. Donald Rumsfeld helping to carry out wounded people at the Pentagon, If we were truly under attack no one could know what would happen or how long it would last, perhaps the airplanes were only the first wave. My point is from the President on down everyone would have gone to ground in bunkers until it was assured that the threat had passed, But there was Rumsfeld, in front of the cameras with a neatly pressed suit on right after the Pentagon attacks on the lawn with the fire behind him. Is this because he and the Government NEW the extant of the attacks and knew they were completely overwith?

This little question has nagged me since that day, I love my country, I have been in combat and bled for it, but I know the government isn't perfect and they do lie. Once in Bosnia we were locked down for two days because someone blew up a market, and yet here is the largest attack since Pearl Harbor and top officials are outside running around? I look forward to some of the really detail oriented people hear helping me nail this down, thank you.

PS, I hope I spelled his name correctly.




posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 04:49 AM
link   
Yes I'd say you hit the nail on the head. I was also watching along on television that day. A few things bothered me as far as the media was concerned. I have voiced these concerns many times and have not exactly received overwhelming support.

1. If the first plane hit the WTC as the french video allegedly depicts, why wasn't this reported when the story first broke? How could a jet be mistaken for a Cessna with millions of witnesses? Why was the clear and present danger misrepresented?

2. Why did the TV cameras NEVER show the WTC at ground level between the alleged first and second attacks? The loss of life and emergency response must have been massive. Yet the viewing public was led to believe there was no sense of urgency.

3. Why did the NYSE open at all on 9/11? Why were CNN and FOX urging WTC stock traders specifically to come to work? Why did CNN and FOX give the 'all clear' after the first attack, claiming that the fires were not life threatening and the damage was confined to a couple of floors?

4. Why haven't these media related questions ever been posed, even by the 9/11 truth movements?



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 07:48 AM
link   
Perhaps the SecDef was there as it was unplanned - the Pentagon is a likely place for the SecDef to be.

I for one am pleased he helped with the wounded, the people he commanded versus running scared.

There is nothing to see here but one person helping another.



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 08:18 AM
link   


SO, on Sept. 11th, why did I see SecDEF. Donald Rumsfeld helping to carry out wounded people at the Pentagon, If we were truly under attack no one could know what would happen or how long it would last, perhaps the airplanes were only the first wave. My point is from the President on down everyone would have gone to ground in bunkers until it was assured that the threat had passed, But there was Rumsfeld, in front of the cameras with a neatly pressed suit on right after the Pentagon attacks on the lawn with the fire behind him. Is this because he and the Government NEW the extant of the attacks and knew they were completely overwith?



Very good point, why?, If, like you said (and we are all lead to believe) they did not know if this was going to be the first of a series of attacks then why did they leave so many of the "top-dogs" out in the "open", hmm seems a little fishy to me too. Perhaps it was a planned PR stunt to make Rumsfeld look like some caring father of the Nation, with all the elections coming up at the time n all.

[edit on 29-12-2006 by marcopolo]



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by crisko
Perhaps the SecDef was there as it was unplanned - the Pentagon is a likely place for the SecDef to be.

I for one am pleased he helped with the wounded, the people he commanded versus running scared.

There is nothing to see here but one person helping another.


I think the others have a point here.. While it maybe nice to see him not running scared. He could of left it up to the emergency services to do their bit while he got in a bunker and carried on commanding those people. If it was not the end of the attacks he would surely have a more vital role behind the scenes possibly preventing more loss of life or co-ordinating rescue teams. thereby saving a few hundred/thousand lives... rather than a few.. just a thought?



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by crisko
Perhaps the SecDef was there as it was unplanned - the Pentagon is a likely place for the SecDef to be.

I for one am pleased he helped with the wounded, the people he commanded versus running scared.

There is nothing to see here but one person helping another.


It's easy to just say that one person would be helping another but unfortunately, thats not how government works.

Infact, there is precautions taken for all aspects of a presidential cabinet when terrorist attacks take place, and the Secretary of Defense would have to had some sort of knowledge that the American public did not regarding Hijacked planes to be out in the open helping others out.

As much as the American public would like to believe that our leaders would jump to help their fallen comrades, that is not true. There are precautions taken to ensure their safety at a time where our national security is being threatened.

We'd all love to believe that our President would jump into a F-16 like in Independence Day and shoot down U.F.O's, but let's be honest, Bush and the rest of his administration would not follow those steps.



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by bledforit


SO, on Sept. 11th, why did I see SecDEF. Donald Rumsfeld helping to carry out wounded people at the Pentagon, If we were truly under attack no one could know what would happen or how long it would last, perhaps the airplanes were only the first wave. My point is from the President on down everyone would have gone to ground in bunkers until it was assured that the threat had passed, But there was Rumsfeld, in front of the cameras with a neatly pressed suit on right after the Pentagon attacks on the lawn with the fire behind him. Is this because he and the Government NEW the extant of the attacks and knew they were completely overwith?



Well, we also saw regular average joe army guy also helping carry people out. Did he know the attacks were overwith? of course not, yet he never moved to any bunkers or stopped helping people. The point is, someone can still know that they may be at risk at the pentagon, yet continue to help and not move to any bunkers, which was demonstrated.

Yeah, I guess letting your brothers burn and selfishly moving to a bunker would have been a good idea. Hey, isnt that what soldiers in combat do? when they see their partner get shot by a sniper, they just say "fvck him!" and run for cover. oh they never yell out his name and struggle to run out and pull his body under cover or try to save him. oh that never happens does it.


[edit on 29-12-2006 by bob2000]



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by crisko
Perhaps the SecDef was there as it was unplanned - the Pentagon is a likely place for the SecDef to be.

I for one am pleased he helped with the wounded, the people he commanded versus running scared.

There is nothing to see here but one person helping another.


Nice try buddy. This would never fly in an apparent national security breech. But I must say "they" would be proud that your perception was this, considering it was their motivation.

I challenge anyone non-believer of the deception to play a game of pretend for me. pretend that you don't believe the official story and research all of the evidence with that frame of mind. You will be shocked & never be the same.

AAC



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 11:33 PM
link   
Wow this is a really good post. I don't recall seeing him there because all they showed where the towers that day. I was at school and I thought it looked like a controlled demolition, of course, I could never say that then.



posted on Dec, 30 2006 @ 02:39 AM
link   
Hi, just wanted to say thanks, some excellent points brought up. Like I said "sharp people here".

I do remember the Cessna remark, I was driving to work at about 8:15am, and 98 ROCK, a local Maryland radio station, announced over their morning show that a airplane had hit the World Trade Center, about ten minutes later they said that YES, a plane had hit and it was a Cessna, probably because of the fog, I got to work and first thing turned on the TV. As soon as I turned it on I saw the plane hit, Not knowing at this point that it was the second plane I was actually seeing, I thought damn how'd they get a video of that. I was on Aberdeen Proving Ground when this happened, a military base in the area.

What I was trying to say is that in events like these there are strict guidelines to be followed and I believe Rumsfeld would have been escorted to a safe pulace wether he wanted to go or not. It's a sad fact of how the military operates, and really must operate, that they can lose some Privates but they must protect the leaders, and yes I know what it's like to say **** it and run out to get a comrade, but I don't believe the SECDEF would even be allowed to get in that position. Are you aware that at certain times, such as during a threat, that the President CANNOT order his Secret Service detail to do anything, they will not listen to him and will forcibly move him along in any way necessary to get him out of the area of danger, a good friend of mine that I served with has just retired from the Secret Service, and I thought I had secret clearances in the service you should see his!, their only orders at that point are, move the President from harm, and do not allow him to lose consciousness if possible. These same type of precautions are in place for many people at the top including Rumsfeld and that's why I thought it was strange that he was out there when the threat could have been ongoing, unless they knew that's all there was. Do you remember the Second wave of car and truck bombs that was being run around the news channels?, they were looking for them all over D.C. for days, or was that just to keep our heads down until they got on damage control.

I'll share my strongest memory of 9/11,
I remember very clearly for 2 or 3 days afterward that there were no jets in the sky and everywhere I drove it seemed like people were in shock, I heard absolutely NO honking, no loud radios, and no agressive driving, it seemed like it brought everyone in the country into focus together even if it was only for a few days, that's why I don't ever want to forget.



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by bledforit

What I was trying to say is that in events like these there are strict guidelines to be followed and I believe Rumsfeld would have been escorted to a safe pulace wether he wanted to go or not. It's a sad fact of how the military operates, and really must operate, that they can lose some Privates but they must protect the leaders, and yes I know what it's like to say **** it and run out to get a comrade, but I don't believe the SECDEF would even be allowed to get in that position. Are you aware that at certain times, such as during a threat, that the President CANNOT order his Secret Service detail to do anything, they will not listen to him and will forcibly move him along in any way necessary to get him out of the area of danger.


THis is where the contridiction in your logic become apparent. If it were true that that SECDEF would be moved to a safe place weither he wanted to or not in a time of danger, THEN WE WOULD NOT BE SEEING HIM HELP PEOPLE ON 911 WOULD WE? 911 was a time of danger, if what you were saying was true, then his people should have been doing what theyre supposed to do and dragged him to a bunker even if he were sreaming something crazy like "damnit! I know theres no more planes, Im part of this conspiracy attack on america! let go of me!", they would still "follow their orders" and take him to the bunker anyway as you say. And if he didnt yell out such crazy comments to his people(which he likely did not
), all the more reason why they would force him to go to a safe bunker. What Rumsfeld knows is really happening wouldnt interfere with standard military procedures.

I mean, this is all according to what you are saying is standard military procedure of moving top people to bunkers weither they want to or not. A contridiction according to what was observed. Given the evidence that Rumsfeld was seen helping people this must mean Rumsfeld has the option of going to a bunker, on 911, he chose to be a hero, much like soldiers in combat choose to do when they have so much to lose..Their own life. The "go to a bunker weither you want to or not" procedure apparently only applies to the president and vice president, not to Rumsfeld given the evidence. Obviously that proceure doesnt apply to the SECDEF, he has the option of going, we know that much.

[edit on 1-1-2007 by bob2000]



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by bob2000

Originally posted by bledforit

What I was trying to say is that in events like these there are strict guidelines to be followed and I believe Rumsfeld would have been escorted to a safe pulace wether he wanted to go or not. It's a sad fact of how the military operates, and really must operate, that they can lose some Privates but they must protect the leaders, and yes I know what it's like to say **** it and run out to get a comrade, but I don't believe the SECDEF would even be allowed to get in that position. Are you aware that at certain times, such as during a threat, that the President CANNOT order his Secret Service detail to do anything, they will not listen to him and will forcibly move him along in any way necessary to get him out of the area of danger.


THis is where the contridiction in your logic become apparent. If it were true that that SECDEF would be moved to a safe place weither he wanted to or not in a time of danger, THEN WE WOULD NOT BE SEEING HIM HELP PEOPLE ON 911 WOULD WE? 911 was a time of danger, if what you were saying was true, then his people should have been doing what theyre supposed to do and dragged him to a bunker even if he were sreaming something crazy like "damnit! I know theres no more planes, Im part of this conspiracy attack on america! let go of me!", they would still "follow their orders" and take him to the bunker anyway as you say. And if he didnt yell out such crazy comments to his people(which he likely did not
), all the more reason why they would force him to go to a safe bunker. What Rumsfeld knows is really happening wouldnt interfere with standard military procedures.

I mean, this is all according to what you are saying is standard military procedure of moving top people to bunkers weither they want to or not. A contridiction according to what was observed. Given the evidence that Rumsfeld was seen helping people this must mean Rumsfeld has the option of going to a bunker, on 911, he chose to be a hero, much like soldiers in combat choose to do when they have so much to lose..Their own life. The "go to a bunker weither you want to or not" procedure apparently only applies to the president and vice president, not to Rumsfeld given the evidence. Obviously that proceure doesnt apply to the SECDEF, he has the option of going, we know that much.

[edit on 1-1-2007 by bob2000]



What contradiction? the name of this thread is Rumsfeld photo op. ("op" being opportunity) and what Bledforit pointed out was the fact that he (Rumsfeld) was being seen "helping" his fellow American in light of a National tragedy, which straight away would give Rumsfeld alot of "on-the-fence" Americans vote, like a PR stunt celebs do, getting publicity.

The point Bledforit did make was that in the scenario of a 9/11 event the chiefs of government would be whisked away into protection fast as you could say conspiracy, this didnt happen and he was conveniently seen on camera helping the poor souls that were directly affected by the "attack".



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 11:22 PM
link   
Hi, thank you again for the replies on any side, if there is any fault to my logic please point it out.

If this (9/11) were a spur of the moment attack that no one saw coming and Rumsfeld ran outside to help then I applaud him his sense of disregard for his own safety, however, even if that were the case than a man of his intelligence, experience, and level of access would have known that outside on the ground he is only one man, however at his station he can command thousands and effect and protect this country, I didn't see a cell phone in his hand when I saw this footage, how did the President feel about not being able to get his SecDef on the phone during the biggest crisis in recent US history? Did he just leave a meesage on his machine?

If this is a conspiracy, ( and I sincerely hope and pray that it isn't) than it was planned for at least months in advance and Rumsfeld wouldn't have been dragged kicking and screaming to a bunker because he would have forseen this happening and taken care of it in advance. Everyone would have known there place on this day and these problems would not have arisen.

My point in bringing this up is yes, it has bugged me for a while now, but it seems we have bogged down in details. We can discuss sizes of aircraft, and the type of steel in the buildings for years but I believe actions speak louder than words. Can anyone else think of other incidents like this surrounding 9/11? Where were the people? What did our leaders do on that day and what was their location? Did our Government shift into high gear on 9/11 to deal with this new threat? or were they already in high gear making sure this happened? Was this really the beginning? or was this phase 2? ( phase 1 planning- phase 2- execution phase 3- keep people scared and consolidate power i.e. homeland security?) I've heard that a plan similar to 9/11 was proposed years ago, can we trace the people involved in that plan? and are they connected today? Maybe they want us bogged down on aircraft size and type of steel, if they keeping us looking in that direction then we won't look in theirs. Say they release all the videos and they show nothing, then we start looking elsewhere for answers. I learned long ago that you can bury pictures, video, evidence, even bodies, but you can't bury living people, they leave trails that can be followed. I look forward to your thoughts.



posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 09:55 AM
link   
Let me explain the flawed logic:

the logic says that if there is a time of danger, then rumsfeld will be forced to a bunker.

911 was a time of danger, he was not in a bunker. THis means that the above logic in the sentence above must not be true, or we would not observe Rumsfeld outside a bunker.

This pretty much kills the conspiracy's logic. The conspiracy says rumsfeld was out helping. THey say this is odd and was planned becuase he should have been in a bunker. But this logic is founded on the fact that if there is danger, Rumsfeld will be in a bunker, so its odd to see himoutside of one. But this creates a logical paradox since in order for it to be odd, the logic at the very beginning of this post must hold true. But since we see rumsfeld, this means its not true, meaning the conspiracy has no foundation.

a paradox. contridiction in logic. No offense, but some CTers logic can be really stupid.



posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 09:48 PM
link   
Thank you for posting.

OK, I'll stop the conjecture and trying to draw others into a debate and tell you what I think happened.

I don't think the Government planned 9/11, I think they learned about it through the intelligence network and decided to let it happen. I believe that the attacks were only targeted at the World Trade Center and the Government purposely added the attack at the Pentagon to make sure a military target was struck.

1. I know there are contingency plans in place to protect our leaders in a time of crisis, i.e. continuity of Government. Rumsfeld should have been at his post, (that's his duty) and in constant contact with the President, not outside out of contact with command, did they see him on TV? or did they think he was killed in the attack?

2. Not planning the attacks but letting them happen gives those in charge the ultimate deniability, plus there is alot less to cover up, you only have to look for your loose ends and let all of those looking for answers trace it back to someone else.

3. They set up alibis for themselves, on 9/11 President Bush was talking with kindergarten children when he was informed and whisked away, couldn't be him he was with children. Rumsfeld was on the ground in harms way helping out, couldn't be him why he's a selfless hero. I don't know where Vice President Cheney was at this time.

4. I believe that material from the WTC and the Pentagon has been hidden from close inspection.

5. I feel that the Pentagon attack was added by the Gov. because if it was only the WTC attacked people would say " oh it's because of our unfair trade practices and greed" but if a military target was hit then it's like someone wants to take us on, someone thinks they can beat our military, this attack would also have the other Generals foaming at the mouth for payback and they have alot of pull. The WTC only was attacked before, and the Coale, and none of them were big enough for the public to demand action. The Gov. made sure this attack was big enough.

6. Also I feel that the level of coverup at the Pentagon is more intense then anywhere else, With little access granted to anyone, where is the debris?, confiscated and edited video, contradictory eyewitness reports, it just seems to me that the white wash job here is more intense then in New York or elsewhere.

7. To me it's like your in the bathroom at work and you overhear two people talking about how their going to kill your boss, if you tell him you could be a hero, but if you let it happen, and add a little extra in there for yourself (Pentagon attack), then you could benefit financially,(Haliburton and your oil buddies), the opposition to your plans would be gone ,meaning your boss, (or in this case congress and the public i.e. patriot act) and you still get to be a hero ( wartime President Vice Pres. SecDef etc.) All the while everyone is looking at someone else. Even that wasn't enough and Bush had to point his finger at Saddam, (the man who threatened his father).

As I said before, I hope and pray that there is no conspiracy, but what I've seen and heard just doesn't add up. Thank you again.



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 06:25 AM
link   
@bledforit

Funny thing, I was just on my way to post something eerie close to what you just wrote. Feels good to know about, at least one other person with almost identical opinions. I'll tell you what I feel for these statements;

1. Yes, that is strange. I also wonder, exactly when did the distress signal from the planes reach the air control? Isn't there like some sort of emergency button in the cockpit for silent alarms in case of hijacking? How soon did they realize that they had multiple hijackings in progress? As soon as they saw it heading at their direction the secret service should have grabbed both Rumsfeld and Bush Jr. and rushed them off, wether they liked it or not, wether they were saving innocent workers or sitting in a school. Sounds like a pr-stunt, at least for Rumsfeld. For Bush Jr. on the other hand, I just concider him plain stupid. His way too overloaded brain just could not take it so he froze on spot. But the way secret service acted seems much too unproffessional to be correct. If they don't have a plan for when their county is obvioulsy under attack, what plans do they got?

2. If this is a cover-up there is no way to un-cover it. I highly doubt there would be any written documents or recordings. And evil men like these surely take their secrets to the grave. Setting it all up, not very likely. Being aware of what was going on and letting it happen, very much possible. I mean, he even got re-elected against all the odds, didn't he? He got to sign all those wierd laws didn't he? He got a reason for attacking both Afaganistan and Iraq and finally settle the score with the middle east (a vast majority of the soldiers in Iraq are brain-washed with the information that 9/11 was a direct declaration of war by Iraq towards the US). Just mentioning the oil, one could say the arabs offered the U.S. a finger but as the super-power grew stronger and hungrier it decided to take the whole hand...

3. Well, who knows. I remeber what Jay Leno said just weeks after 9/11:
"People wonder where Osama is. I wonder, where is Dick Cheney? Do we have caves up here as well? I remember when there was only one rich guy living in a cave: Batman!" Being abscent and one of the worst pro-war politicians I think he just sat on a safe distance, sipping on some champagne, enjoying the opening act for the final showdown. It's too much of coincidence to be pure fate. They saw it coming alright, concidered the pro's and con's and decieded therearfter.

4. Maybe, but those things were probably hidden from the start. This is not the first dirty deed pulled by the US-goverment. They've had hidden agendas for all wars after 2nd world war.

5. Good point, but I guess we will never know until the accual plot-maker himself steps forward and confess everything (like that would ever happen). I don't support the idea of a tomahawk cruise missile hitting the pentagon, the detonation and destruction would be different in that case, but they could much more likely have tipped the hijackers off and somehow made sure they'd hit the pentagon.

6. Well, the pentagon is a pretty off-limits area. They have loads of things to cover up, it's what they do normally anyway. Must be a real sweaty moment, letting all the emergency personel wander about freely amongst the nations best kept secrets. This wasn't a public place in the same extent as WTC.

7. Yes, it's like that. Plus you whisper little hints from your toilet-booth to make sure it goes exactly the way you want it to happen. Of course, there will be some death, but just think about the money, the oil, the power!

Cover-up or no cover-up, doesn't matter. This regime has shown themselves capable of doing similar things to their own population before and they will again. In fact, we are all in the midst of it, paying the bill, and I'm not even an US-citizen!

No more wars please. At least not for crappy reasons.



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by bob2000
This pretty much kills the conspiracy's logic. The conspiracy says rumsfeld was out helping. THey say this is odd and was planned becuase he should have been in a bunker. But this logic is founded on the fact that if there is danger, Rumsfeld will be in a bunker, so its odd to see himoutside of one. But this creates a logical paradox since in order for it to be odd, the logic at the very beginning of this post must hold true. But since we see rumsfeld, this means its not true, meaning the conspiracy has no foundation.

a paradox. contridiction in logic. No offense, but some CTers logic can be really stupid.


Its not a contradiction at all. Fact is that as soon as the alerts went out that a plane had hit WTC1, and that other planes were missing, Rumsfeld should have been moved to a secure location, in order to ensure continuity of Government in time of warfare.

That fact that Rumsfeld was seen means one of two things.

1. The whole chain of command system is flawed, means nothing and there will be no continuity of government if the crap hits the fan. The Secret Service dropped the ball, they are under orders to protect him, not pander to him.

or

2. He was out in the open because he already knew there would be no more attacks that would be getting through, in which case he knew a damn site more than he was letting on.

Either way something is skewed and not right, and the original poster has asked a pertinent question.



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 12:18 AM
link   
Thank you to everyone who replied especially the last two. First let me say to Raud, if your thinking like me you've got more to worry about than any conspiracy. And to Neformore, you made some excellent points also, the one that really blew me away was that, I had become so used to the Military in particular and the Government in general being screwed up that it never occurred to me that what you said could have been the reason for what I observed, on 9/11 everyone was unprepared and dropped the ball, the President was overwhelmed, the Vice President was in his secret lair somewhere, and the SecDef tried to do the right thing but it's not what he was supposed to be doing, the Secret Service didn't handle themselves well (maybe, don't know for sure) and NO one had a real plan to deal with a real crisis. I used to think what the hell I've got my pension, but now, is it really safe? Are any of us really safe is this is the reason for what I saw on 9/11?



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore

Originally posted by bob2000
This pretty much kills the conspiracy's logic.....

a paradox. contridiction in logic. No offense, but some CTers logic can be really stupid.


Its not a contradiction at all. Fact is that as soon as the alerts went out that a plane had hit WTC1, and that other planes were missing, Rumsfeld should have been moved to a secure location, in order to ensure continuity of Government in time of warfare.


Well why would he have been moved? we arent talking about what he should have done, or what would have been in the nations interests for him to do, the crux of this post is about what he was supposed to do according to standard procedure.

THeres a big flaw in the logic of this post. Im going to educate you on logic here.

THis post says that hes supposed to be put in a bunker weither he wants to or not, supposedly this is STANDARD PROCEDURE. now, since he was seen outside, this is supposedly odd. and so people say that its a sign of a conspiracy. But it would only be odd if there really existed such procedures for the SECDEF. But if such procedures did apply to the SECDEF, then we woldnt be seeing him outside, therefore nothing odd to even see.

Heres your schooling on logic:

-You are either in A or B, not both
-if it is true that you are in A, then you will observe C and never D.
-if it is true that you are in B , then you will observe D or C.

so then
-if we observe C, then we are in A or B with equal uncertainty
-if we observe D, then we know we are in B with 100% certainty.

replace A with "a world where Rumsfeld is forced into a bunker during danger"

replace B with "a world where Rumsfeld is not forced into a bunker during danger".

replace C with "rumsfelds absence during a time of danger"

replace D with "rumsfeld out in the open during a time of danger"

so it will look like this:

-You are either in "a world where Rumsfeld is forced into a bunker during danger" or "a world where Rumsfeld is not forced into a bunker during danger", not both.

-if it is true that you are in "a world where Rumsfeld is forced into a bunker during danger", then you will observe "rumsfelds absence during a time of danger" and never "rumsfeld out in the open during a time of danger".

-if it is true that you are in "a world where Rumsfeld is not forced into a bunker during danger" , then you will observe "rumsfeld out in the open during a time of danger" or "rumsfelds absence during a time of danger".

so then
-if we observe "rumsfelds absence during a time of danger" , then we know we are in "a world where Rumsfeld is forced into a bunker during danger" or "a world where Rumsfeld is not forced into a bunker during danger" with equal uncertainty.

-if we observe "rumsfeld out in the open during a time of danger", then we know we are in "a world where Rumsfeld is not forced into a bunker during danger". with 100% certainty.

Now, since we saw Rumsfeld, then to keep ourselves logical contridiction free, we must deduce that there are no procedures for the SECDEF that force him into a bunker during a time of danger. he obviously has the option of doing such a thing, key word "optional".

According to the conspiracy theory, he does in fact have such a procedure in place. But if this were true, then seeing rumsfeld out in the open would create a logic violation given that its true hes forced into the bunker during a time of danger. The theory states before hand that "we are in A", then it points out that D was observed. If D is observed, then "we are in B with 100% certainty". You cant be in A and B at the same time!!! logical violation!!!!!! Basically, CTers are using a "photo op conspiracy" to explain a logical violation even though the conspiracy creates it. go figure.


[edit on 6-1-2007 by bob2000]



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 07:56 PM
link   
Thank you for posting your reply, it must have taken some time, (and a few aspirin), to do.

OK, I'll stop with the conjecture and tell you what I do know. There ARE procedures in place all the time in the event of a crisis or a attack. This part is not open to debate as I served in the Military for 28years and know what they are. I stated earlier that I was driving to work on the Aberdeen Proving Ground when I heard on the radio about the first plane striking, I was already at work when the second plane hit, when it was determined that we were under attack and that other planes were missing we were all put on alert. Did you think that the President grounded all flights but didn't put the Military on alert as well? Given my rank there weren't to many people on base who could give me orders however I received a phone call ordering me to alert status, and I was to send it down the chain of command. I KNOW that the Pentagon was on alert because I spoke with many people there on 9/11 and for days afterward. I have met Rumsfeld on many occasions and have briefed him and been briefed by him. I have also met and briefed the President, this is the fourth President that I have had the honor to work for and speak with, (Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr.) Having met Rumsfeld I know he is a very quiet, respectful and very dedicated man, the country is first and foremost on his mind, he is intelligent and puts his duty before anything else. That is why I found it very jarring on 9/11 to see him outside helping out. I was on alert and I know the Pentagon was as well, and given his devotion to the country and his duty he wouldn't have left his post unless he was dead or ordered to do it. That's whats bothering me, Don's not really a politician, he was probably ordered outside for the photo op by someone who is, and they're aren't to many people who can order the Sec Def around. See my problem? I will tell you this, since 9/11 Rumsfeld has not been himself, I know the war has alot to do with it, but just after 9/11 you could see a change in the way he did his job and the way he generally carried himself, yes it could be planning for the upcoming war but I believe it's because he was ordered to do something and then put in a very difficult position by someone else, as far as conspiracies go, if there is one I don't believe he had any part in any of it up until 9/11.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join