Creative Speculation
In reply to the discussion: 911: Window of Exposure [View all]William Seger
(10,809 posts)Let's recap:
What you were claiming in the OP and since is that Rumsfeld willfully and deliberately did things that morning that would have prevented communications from the President down to the military, and you claim that he did those things with the intent to maximize the number of murders.
Your humorous attempt at an argument to support that contention was based on hand-waving assertions that what Rumsfeld did that morning was exactly what was required to satisfy your hand-waving claims about his goals, and you claim that the only explanation for that is that those must have indeed been his goals.
We've determined that you don't understand why that's an "assuming the consequent" fallacy, but it gets much worse: You haven't even bothered to establish that anything he did that morning would have actually made him unavailable if Bush had tried to call him; you just assume it, and it's obviously a very dubious assumption if he had his phone with him at all times. Furthermore, your assertion that what he did was the best way to accomplish your claimed objectives is limited by your own imagination, whereas if Rumsfeld actually had those objectives, he might have been smart enough to come up with something better -- as I mentioned (and you ignored), perhaps getting on a commercial flight.
So, you really don't have any argument that's debatable, but now you also admit that those things you say he did in the OP actually had no impact on what went down that morning. Which means that your argument isn't just invalid and unsound; it has no reason whatsoever for even being conjured into existence in the first place, because it attempts to explain stuff that didn't happen.
I don't think this is the most ridiculous argument I've seen here, but seriously, that's not a record you want to shoot for.