I mean the NIST study that I’ve known about since before I ever heard of you.
A few posts ago you didn’t even know there was a formal investigation. Which is it Madame B. Flip-Flop?
BTW, the 9/11 money doc I posted was made by a guy far more intelligent than you, Starling, and he sources all of his info.
Sourcing shit with shit still gives you shit.
Why do I have to explain this to you given how educated you claim to be?
I told you I wasn’t talking about NIST’s look into a building. I was talking about an investigation of the whole event And I told you I knew about the NIST study. It’s just part of the official story. I totally disregard it, especially because it’s based on a building that was PULLED, thus nullifying all of their bullshit findings.
You’d be hard pressed to find any government report that doesn’t include redacted information. That’s done for any number of reasons and doesn’t necessarily imply trying to hide damning details. I get a slew of FBI/CIA/NSA reports that come to me daily and I’ve yet to see one that didn’t have redactions even though I have Top Secret clearance. Most often, it’s to protect individuals’ identities and/or PI and avoid potential legal action. 28 reactions in a 500 page report is not unreasonable.
1 Like
All you keep throwing at me is garbage and if you don’t know it’s garbage, go to your alma mater and demand your money back.
The New York Times, The New Yorker, The Wall Street Journal, and the Port Authority’s own publication are shit sources?
No seriously, demand a refund.
Yes, but we know what was redacted now, don’t we? And what was redacted was explosive. I cannot believe you don’t realize that. I believe it about Starling. She’s a tool. But you’re smarter than that.
So, when the NYT reports on a real estate sale, and the documentarian uses that as a source to prove there was a sale, that’s not good enough for you? See, the thing is, you haven’t watched the doc, so you don’t know what he’s talking about or sourcing. You’re an idiot.
1 Like
No more of a full-on investigation than the Warren Commission after JFK assassination. It’s not “full-on” if it ignores any evidence it doesn’t like.
1 Like
Do you have a copy of the redacted material?
Such as…?
OMG. You don’t know what I’m talking about here, either.
You’re throwing truther garbage at me and I’M the idiot?!
BUAHAHAHAHA!
Being that was a question…
DERP.
Yup
You don’t know enough about the whole thing to argue intelligently about it, yet you love to beat your breast and claim superiority.
1 Like
I beat my chest about having standards in information gathering. Why you don’t is not only baffling but shocking as well.