Because facts really SHOULD be sacred. Our editors - @catte_black & @kit_knightly

Joined April 2015
How has a government report found "60% of Jewish children experience antisemitism at school", when only LAST YEAR, a Jewish research organisation found it was 24%? Who is wrong? Or has it almost tripled in a year?
4
10
33
1,353
Quick Take...Masks (Still) Don't Work off-guardian.org/2026/10/10/…
2
9
32
1,716
Govt wants "interventionist state policing & regulating online space" off-guardian.org/2026/10/05/…
2
10
1
18
1,720
>Give Ukraine 1 billion Euros of tax revenue on the understanding they buy drones. >Ukraine buys drones from companies you own stocks in and/or your friends and family are employed by. >That 1 billion in public money is now 1 billion in private money, distributed about your immediate circle. >Ukraine blows up shitty drones and needs to buy more >Give them more tax revenue.
Reuters
@ReutersOct 4
Air-raid sirens sounded in Kyiv as German Chancellor Friedrich Merz visited Ukraine with plans to announce over $1 billion in aid and finalize a drone deal reut.rs/4iYRa4P
5
37
3
79
2,073
“Stop trying to make Fly Dubai happen. It’s not going to happen!”
1
7
49
2,087
Islamic State, huh?
Reuters
@ReutersSep 30
US forces exit Iraq, emboldening Iran's proxies and Islamic State reut.rs/4AF1J3b reut.rs/4AF1J3b
2
4
25
1,908
The below cap is good illustration of what I don't understand about certain (not all) 'DEW on 9/11' proponents. Why deliberately distort the data in exactly the same way the govt does? The video of yellow hot metal pouring from the South Tower just moments before it 'goes away' has always been incredibly suspicious and a huge problem for the official story since no jet fuel fire could possibly be hot enough to turn iron or steel molten and yellow. So, why would a 9/11 truther deliberately try to discredit this evidence? But that is exactly what 911 Revisited is doing in some of his posts, eg the one below. He tries to give the impression that the video evidence of the yellow hot metal has been nefariously edited, and that in reality it had nothing to do "with the demise of the building". In truth the video has indeed been edited - to cut out 55s of extraneous footage of a helicopter. The unedited footage shows yellow hot metal pouring from the ST about a minute and a half before the tower erupts. But would you guess that from reading the below summary? The sad truth is 911 Revisited is using misdirection to the same end as NIST or any "official" source. Why? We did ask him. He didn't answer.
8
3
1
16
4,298