They couldn't make a more blatant hit piece. The only damage they actually cite despite claiming to have access to a 1100 page report is someone's trail camera

They couldn't make a more blatant hit piece. The only damage they actually cite despite claiming to have access to a 1100 page report is someone's trail camera seeing birds getting scared off and their eggs being eaten by another animal... The rest is all whining about not being allowed on site after the self-admitted dangerous explosion for 48 hours and a bunch of "but the experts (specifically the ones we prefer) say they definitely need a flame diverter". Then they wonder why SpaceX's protocol is to ignore media rags. The design decisions that led up to the decision to not have a flame trench weren't exactly secret either. They wanted to avoid it because they would have to build up the area to be able to have a trench, which would take many years and would end up being a high cost for every launch site they might want to build, and so they tried to come up with a design that could get by without one. By the time came for the orbital test, they knew the concrete would not be sufficient and the water deluge system was already in development, but they expected that the concrete would be ablated. Instead it unexpectedly shattered due to interactions with the sand underneath. However, saying that isn't convenient for the narrative. Many of the "experts" they're citing likely also made claims about how reusable rocketry isn't economical or that pin point landings on a barge in the middle of the ocean would not be reliable every time there was a failed attempt during the early days of that.