Not necessarily; IMO it is cherry picked if it is taken out of context and displayed in such a way that it means something completely different.
So why don't you respond to each quote if you are so confident they are as "illegitimate" as my Farmer quote? I'm not going to read through those threads and try to figure out which part you think is relevant...you'll have to link me to the relevant parts.
If I do the first couple will you accept that link is probably FOS?
Lee Hamilton: (full quote)
Hamilton: I don’t believe for a minute that we got everything right. We wrote a first draft of history.
We wrote it under a lot of time pressure, and we sorted through the evidence as best we could.
Now, it would be really rather remarkable if we got everything right. So far, of the things that have been brought up challenging the report, to my knowledge, we have more credibility than the challenger. But I would not for a moment want to suggest that that’s always true, either in the past or in the future. People will be investigating 9/11 for the next hundred years in this country, and they’re going to find out some things that we missed here.
So I don’t automatically reject all the evidence you cite. It may be we missed it, it may be we ignored it when we shouldn’t have - I don’t think we did, but it's possible.
Of course the commission wasn't going to get everything 100% right, Hamiliton is correct on that aspect. Doesn't mean he thinks they are wrong, or that there was a conspiracy.
Hamilton (set up to fail full quote):
Hamilton: Well, for a number of reasons: Tom Kean and I were substitutes - Henry Kissinger and George Mitchell were the first choices; we got started late; we had a very short time frame - indeed, we had to get it extended; we did not have enough money - 3 million dollars to conduct an extensive investigation. We needed more, we got more, but it took us a while to get it.
We had a lot of skeptics out there, who really did not want the Commission formed. Politicians don’t like somebody looking back to see if they made a mistake.
The Commission had to report right, just a few days before the Democratic National Convention met, in other words, right in the middle of a political campaign. We had a lot of people strongly opposed to what we did. We had a lot of trouble getting access to documents and to people. We knew the history of commissions; the history of commissions were they.. nobody paid much attention to 'em.
So there were all kinds of reasons we thought we were set up to fail. We decided that if we were going to have any success, we had to have a unanimous report, otherwise the Commission report would simply be filed.
It's called Murphy's Law, and that was essentially all Hamilton was referring to, the bad coincidences that happened.
Kerrey was dismissive of the conspiracy theories as well. Asked about the possibility of a controlled demolition at the World Trade Center, he scoffed, “There’s no evidence for that.” But he also noted that, quite apart from what Avery and others in the “truth movement” have proposed, many legitimate mysteries still surround the events of that day. “There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version,” Kerrey said. The commission had limited time and limited resources to pursue its investigation, and its access to key documents and witnesses was fettered by the administration. “I didn’t read a single PDB,” Kerrey said, referring to the president’s daily intelligence briefing reports. “We didn’t have access to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed,” the mastermind of the plot. “We accepted a compromise, submitting our questions to him through the CIA. Now, that’s not the best way to go about getting your questions answered. So I’m 100 percent certain that [bin Laden] directed that attack, but am I completely comfortable saying there was no direct Saudi involvement, or that Saddam Hussein wasn’t involved in some fashion, or that the Iranians weren’t involved? I’m pretty close to 100 percent certain, but I’d be more comfortable if we’d interviewed Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.”
So that site latches on a selective quote from Kerrey and presents it in such a way to make him look like he thinks it's a conspiracy, however, they completely ignore the subsequent paragraph in which Kerrey dismisses truthers.
"A red herring is a clue or piece of information which is intended to be misleading, or distracting from the actual issue"
My thesis is that the US govt either knew about the attacks beforehand allowed the attacks to happen or had a direct hand in them. So how is bringing up a real example from history showing how the US govt had planned to hijack planes and plant bombs and then frame someone else to gain public and international support to enter a war "misleading or distracting"? It is exactly analogous!
An analogy does not equal a red herring.
No, it's not an analogy but rather an attempt to conflate the issue by correlating it to some document written in the 60s. You aren't using evidence but rather speculation.
7) Former Deputy Secretary for Intelligence and Warning under Nixon, Ford, and Carter (Morton Goulder), former Deputy Director to the White House Task Force on Terrorism (Edward L. Peck), and former US Department of State Foreign Service Officer (J. Michael Springmann), as well as a who’s who of liberals and independents) jointly call for a new investigation into 9/11 [911truth.org]
8) Former Federal Prosecutor, Office of Special Investigations, U.S. Department of Justice under Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan; former U.S. Army Intelligence officer, and currently a widely-sought media commentator on terrorism and intelligence services (John Loftus) says [co.uk] “The information provided by European intelligence services prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible for either the CIA or FBI to assert a defense of incompetence”
13) High-Level Officials Want to Explain 9/11 … But Are Being Gagged
There are high-level officials who can tell us why 9/11 happened … but they are being ignored or gagged.
As Senator Patrick Leahy said [democracynow.org] that Congress doesn’t want to know what happened:
The two questions that thecongress will not ask . . . is why did 9/11 happen on George Bush’s watch when he had clear warnings that it was going to happen? Why did they allow it to happen?
And the people who can explain what happened are being gagged. FBI Translator – “The Most Gagged Person” In History
The most gagged person in the history of the United States of America.
And famed Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg says [bradblog.com] that Edmonds possesses information “far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers”.
Not a single politicians or prosecutor has been willing to issue a subpoena.
Edmonds also made the following offer [bradblog.com]:
If anyone of the major networks — ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, FOX — promise to air the entire segment, without editing, I promise to tell them everything that I know,” about everything mentioned above, she told us.
“I can tell the American public exactly what it is, and what it is that they are covering up,” she continued. “I’m not compromising ongoing investigations,” Edmonds explained, because “they’ve all been shut down since.”
Not a single major network has let Edmonds say what she knows.
Indeed, Ellsberg says [bradblog.com] that the government has ordered the media not to touch Edmonds:
Ellsberg seemed hardly surprised that today’s American mainstream broadcast media has so far failed to take [former FBI translator and 9/11 whistleblower Sibel] Edmonds up on her offer, despite the blockbuster nature of her allegations.
As Edmonds has also alluded, Ellsberg pointed to the New York Times, who “sat on the NSA spying story for over a year” when they “could have put it out before the 2004 election, which might have changed the outcome.”
“There will be phone calls going out to the media saying ‘don’t even think of touching it, you will be prosecuted for violating national security,’” he told us.
* * *
“I am confident that there is conversation inside the Government as to ‘How do we deal with Sibel?’” contends Ellsberg. “The first line of defense is to ensure that she doesn’t get into the media. I think any outlet that thought of using her materials would go to to the government and they would be told ‘don’t touch this . . . .‘”
14) Other Whistleblowers Being Silenced
Edmonds also says [boilingfrogspost.com] that she has been contacted by two high-ranking military officers who would like to shed light on 9/11, but – due to their oaths of secrecy – can only do so if subpoenaed. No one in Washington wants to issue a subpoena. High-Level Military Intelligence Officer: No One In Washington Wants To Know
Similarly, a high-level military intelligence officer says [truth-out.org] that his unit – tasked with tracking Bin Laden prior to 9/11 – was pulled off the task, and there warnings that the World Trade Center and Pentagon were being targeted were ignored.
Moreover, he says that he has information that can shed light on 9/11, and that he has repeatedly tried to get this information to the Obama administration and Congress, but that no one in the administration or Congress wants to hear about it. As just one example, Nancy Pelosi’s office demanded that he not even email any information which he has about 9/11.
He is still working in military intelligence, and so he can only publicly speak about 9/11 if he is subpoenaed. He is therefore asking that he be subpoenaed … but no one wants to look into it:
There are numerous other whistleblowers with key information about 9/11. But no one in the government or media wants to hear what they know."
I was pointing out the striking similarities between the planned Operation Northwoods and the 9/11 attacks.
And I was pointing out that it is a red herring because it is a document from the 60s that has no bearing on what actually happened, IOW "a piece of information which is intended to be misleading, or distracting from the actual issue"
Again, upset at the lack of cooperation, not that the government was in on it.
Also, his resignation had nothing to do with these quotes but was rather based on his acceptance of a government position.
A 27-year CIA veteran, who chaired National Intelligence Estimates and personally delivered intelligence briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, their Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials, and who has for years been a tireless anti-war advocate and critic of imperial foreign policy (Raymond McGovern) said “I think at simplest terms, there’s a cover-up. The 9/11 Report is a joke”
He was retired well before 9/11 happened, why should anyone care what his unsupported opinion is?
[*]7) Former Deputy Secretary for Intelligence and Warning under Nixon, Ford, and Carter (Morton Goulder), former Deputy Director to the White House Task Force on Terrorism (Edward L. Peck), and former US Department of State Foreign Service Officer (J. Michael Springmann), as well as a who’s who of liberals and independents) jointly call for a new investigation into 9/11 [911truth.org]
Good for them. Unfortunately many people with access to actual evidence say there is no need for a new investigation.
And that's all I care to tackle. So you have misquotes from people actually involved, and then claims of misconduct and calls for a new investigation be people that weren't involved with anything. Not exactly the whistleblowers you would think there would be assuming such a grand conspiracy.
except the incredible similarities between the hypothetical scenarios described then and what actually happened on 9/11...while the same govt was in power.
but it must all be just a big coincidence, right...?
Do you believe in the Bible Code? Nostradamus? Miss Cleo? Coincidences happen, nothing new, and there is nothing to point that Northwoods has anything to do with 9/11. Want another similarity? 1993 WTC Bombing[wikipedia.org]
Last edited by paperboy05; 03-07-2012 at 01:35 PM..
Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Do you believe in the Bible Code? Nostradamus? Miss Cleo? Coincidences happen, nothing new, and there is nothing to point that Northwoods has anything to do with 9/11. Want another similarity? 1993 WTC Bombing [wikipedia.org]
Slickdeals is able to share the best deals because of the contributions of users like you! If you found a great deal,
please share it with others by posting in our forums.
Welcome to Slickdeals!
Save money here by finding the lowest and cheapest price, best deals and bargains, and hot coupons. We're all about
community driven bargain hunting with thousands of free discounts, promo codes, reviews and price comparisons.
Don't worry, we'll help you find your way. If you haven't already, check out this
that explains the features of our site.