Then why not answer the question?
I popped through various parts of the video, but I’m not watching a 2-hour video.
YOU posted it. I presume that you watched the whole thing.
Post some highlights. Post a transcript.
Do SOMETHING.
If you need someone to spoon feed you a narrative then watch the mainstream media.
If you want the readers digest version then perhaps a 2 hour video isn’t for you. In that case develop your own conclusion based on bits and pieces.
Or...begin with the 38 minute mark and then respond back by concluding its not enough information simply because you refuse to educate yourself with a video well beyond that of your attention span.
Have some respect. I’m not watching your 2 hour video either you Smart ass noob.
Thanks (finally), Richard Cranium.
“I popped through various parts of the video, but I’m not watching a 2-hour video.”
1) because there’s no need to…we all know what’s up
2) that’s 2 unnecessary hours of DOING NOTHING while those who want to destroy us are actively pursuing there goals
“Or...begin with the 38 minute mark”
Seriously?
You post a TWO-HOUR video with no excerpt, then a-hole comment about the 38-minute mark to reveal a question we’ve ALL been asking since the beginning,
“What was really in those train cars?”
The entire video is idle speculation, and the substack/guest you failed to quote merely highlights the patently obvious once again: “Environmental crime.”
Many of us KNEW:
>that the burn was unjustified at the time it occurred.
>that the results would be dioxin poisoning of a wide area at the time it occurred.
>that the tests being performed were NOT comprehensive.
>that this smacked of a coverup from the get-go.
There are NO ANSWERS in this TWO-HOUR waste of time.
So, then, the presumption is that you are linked to Staus Coup and trying to drive up their modest viewership, or perhaps you YOURSELF had the breakthrough in watching a TWO-HOUR video on mere speculation.
Congratulations, Richard. /s