Question: If its redacted, how do you know what is behind the black ink?
Answer: Pure speculation on your part.
Question: How do you know that information is not redacted for reasons other then those you are guessing at, for example, to protect sources, or assets, or innocent third parties?
Answer: You don't, and nor do I, and nor does anyone who does not have a sufficiently high security clearance.
In conspiracy world, "redacted" automatically means "cover up".
In the real world, they do not. There are never valid reasons for a cover up, but there are perfectly valid reasons for information to be redacted.
How do you know that information is not redacted for reasons other then those you are guessing at, for example, to protect sources, or assets, or innocent third parties?
This information which is redacted in the Joint Inquiry was asked to be cleared for public view so that the 9/11 victims families, whom is suing the Saudi Kingdom for the 9/11 attacks, can be used in NY District Court. Its why i posted that link so you can read it yourself. The State department will not make it publicly view-able. Its quite clear from the JASTA Act what the goal to making all information public is seen here:
"Kreindler & Kreindler, however, will file suit against Saudi Arabia on behalf of all injured persons and will seek to prove that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia should be held responsible for aiding, abetting and sponsoring the attacks and should be made to pay for all the injuries that flowed from its conduct."
https://www.kreindler.com/9-11-Terror-Attacks-Justice-Against-Sponsors-of-Terrorism-Act.shtml
"In conspiracy world, "redacted" automatically means "cover up". Yes, maybe if you were talking to a conspiracy theorist, one of which im not a part of sir. Im a skeptic of the events of September 11th. Nothing and nowhere in any of my posts do i delve into the "fantastical". Yes there is a cover up happening here in regards to the Saudi Kingdom and the State Department, even Bob Graham, co chair of the Joint Inquiry admits this everywhere he speaks. To Graham he doesn't use "cover-up" anymore, he labels it "aggressive deception".
"So could you explain particularly this last couple of sentences, “Primarily before the event. After the event, it shifts from being an action that supports the activities to Saudis to actions that cover up the results of that permission given to the Saudis to act”? So can you elaborate on that?"
Bob Graham: "Well, and I’ll get to the why question: why would the U.S. government have done this? And let me say, I no longer use the words cover up to describe what’s going on. I find more accurate the words aggressive deception. The federal government has attempted to rewrite the narrative of 9/11 in order to exclude the role of the Saudis from that horrific story.
Why did they do it? I think there are a number of reasons. Some of them relate to the longtime, special, personal relationship between the Bush family and the Saudi Kingdom–goes back three generations to Herbert Walker Bush’s father, Prescott Bush, a senator from Connecticut.
I think it also involves the long relationship that started in World War II when the United States essentially committed to provide security to the Saudis. The Saudis committed to provide a reliable source of petroleum to the United States and its allies.
And I think there’s another issue here. And that is, if you’ll recall, at the World Trade Center after 9/11, the president, with a bullhorn, said words to the effect that we are going to follow anyone who was found to have been in any way connected to this murder and that we will follow them to the ends of the earth–pretty strong words. And certainly, shortly thereafter, much of the information that you have outlined became available to the president.
Problem: the president wanted to go to war with Iraq, and he has painted at the site of the crime a path that looks like it’s going directly to the Saudis, but that’s not the destination he wants. So what do you do? You have to suppress all the information that would cause people to think that the Saudis were the people that he was talking about with the bullhorn at the World Trade Center and get the country prepared and willing to go to war against a country which was subsequently found out to have virtually, if not totally, nothing to do with 9/11."
https://therealnews.com/stories/sen...e-of-bandar-and-saudis-in-9-11-attacks-pt-1-2
