Anonymous ID: c69010 Jan. 21, 2018, 4:18 p.m. No.118316   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>8332

>>118266

Yes, but then he gave us that double negative after it happened which may indicate that the non-nuke was disinformation. So we don't really have enough info yet to be completely sure.

 

>DEFCON 1 [non-nuke FALSE]

Anonymous ID: c69010 Jan. 21, 2018, 4:24 p.m. No.118397   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>118330

Since when does discussion of something we haven't yet figured out come under the banner of too controversial"? It has nothing to do with what I was to believe. I and my family lived through it and I want the facts. Mmmk sparky?