Well, one example being the no-mention of what the barracks bombing in 1983 did to lawmakers and the IC. Since their mission was to gather “facts and circumstances relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,” and, "to provide the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11," leaving out: "The horrifying Mideast terrorist bombing attacks in recent weeks have sent shock waves through the U.S. government, lending credence to a bizarre and traumatic threat: that a suicidal terrorist attack could be launched in the United States on the president, some other top U.S. official or a sacred American symbol such as the White House or the Capitol," is quite staggering. 'TERRORISM'S TREMORS JOLT U.S. POLICY WASHINGTON BRACING FOR TERRORIST ATTACKS Miami Herald - December 18, 1983 - 1A FRONT' Read more here: http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we...=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM#storylink=cpy So this extends even further back our government recognizing the threat of suicidal extremist Muslims against the U.S. homeland. A second example would be the ass-covering coverage of Afghanistan. "A decade of conflict in Afghanistan, from 1979 to 1989, gave Islamist extremists a rallying point and training field." Yes, that is true, but who armed, trained and then left them to their own devices afterwards? I suspect that the Commissioners (I.e. the select few authorized to view such classified materials) grazed over Operation Cyclone, but like other things, it served "little practical significance." Besides, wouldn't there be IC reports in the affirmative that, like the Syrian rebels of today, that extremists of the kind the U.S. disliked existed while we worked, armed and then left high and dry in Afghanistan - which mind you, was contrary to Reagan's declared War on Terrorism, which is also absent from this alleged "full and complete accounting" report. A third example would be Able Danger. Yeah, I know, the allegations were not substantiated by the government, but I'll push back: 1) why would the whistleblowers, witnesses and lawmakers lie, 2) the program did exist (with the intended target of al Qaeda), 3) how easy is it to destroy paperwork (which we all know the government does), and 4) 2.5 TB of data was destroyed.
Link(s) please, kind sir. And, since it wasn't covered in the report itself, it falls under the "lack thereof" still.
The link has been provided earlier in this thread, the files we are discussing. Post #21 As the info is publicly available, it is not lacking. Research is all that is required. Like most anything worthwhile, it won't be spoon fed to you.
http://911datasets.org/index.php?ti...set=0&redirs=1&profile=all&search=Afghanistan http://911datasets.org/index.php?ti...=all&search=Operation+Cyclone&fulltext=Search http://911datasets.org/index.php?title=Special:Search&profile=all&search=mujahideen&fulltext=Search http://911datasets.org/index.php?ti...e=all&search=barracks+bombing&fulltext=Search http://911datasets.org/index.php?title=Special:Search&profile=all&search=Lebanon&fulltext=Search http://911datasets.org/index.php?ti...le=all&search=Marine+barracks&fulltext=Search http://911datasets.org/index.php?ti...earch=Reagan+War+on+Terrorism&fulltext=Search http://911datasets.org/index.php?title=Special:Search&profile=all&search=Able+Danger&fulltext=Search So tell me again how the information is there.
Lol. Emphasis mine. Emphasis mine. CJ quote mined my post, picking out, "why is it that you trust the NIST report and the 9/11 Commission report? How much access do you have to their materials to verify what they're saying is true," to respond to. He mentions 911datasets. Emphasis mine. Here I am still talking about the 9/11 Commission Report. Emphasis mine. Here I am still talking about the 9/11 Commission Report. Emphasis mine. Emphasis mine. Operation Cyclone, barracks bombing, Reagan War on Terrorism and Able Danger yielded *ZERO* results. I threw in mujahideen, Lebanon and Marine barracks to broaden the search, but they too yielded *ZERO* results. Afghanistan brought back some information, but nothing from a quick glance that was relevant to my post (#26) about Afghanistan from the 1980's and early 90's. Remember, I asked: "Is what I posted covered in those files?" Which was, as you damn well know, referring to post #26. You replied, simply, "Yes." So show me how you're not lying. Provide the evidence that 911datasets.org does in fact posses the information I talked about in post #26. Back up your claim of, "Yes." That is, if you even can.
So you're going with "simply trolling". Gotcha. What's next? "Where in the commission report do they prove it wasn't laser beams from space?"
So you're going with not backing up your claims and proving that you're a liar in the process. Gotcha. If you can hand me my ass in this "debate," why not do it? Because clearly, I'm handing you yours. Pretty uncharacteristic of you to NOT at least even try and hand me my ass. So provide the proof that the site has the information I talked about in post #26 and clear this whole thing up.
