Anonymous ID: 341dc9 Jan. 4, 2021, 11:08 a.m. No.12312457   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun

Q#4881

Q !!Hs1Jq13jV6 10/17/2020 12:36:26

https://twitter.com/stinchfield1776/status/1317450311192223746

There is 'Q'. 1

There are 'Anons'. 2

There is no 'Qanon'. 3

Media labeling as 'Qanon' is a method [deliberate] to combine [attach] 'Q' to comments _theories _suggestions _statements [and ACTIONS] made by 2.

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU CANNOT ATTACK THE INFORMATION [primary source 1]?

DO YOU ATTACK [& TYPECAST] THROUGH USE OF OTHERS?

Not all 'Anons' are authentic [injected].

You are correct, CJ.

Retweet @ 17:17 had meaning. [mathematical probability _17:17 [day after]?]

Do you believe it was a coincidence surgical removal of You Tube accounts occurred same day as 'Hunter' drop?

Welcome to the Digital Battlefield.

Q

Anonymous ID: 341dc9 Jan. 4, 2021, 11:39 a.m. No.12312809   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>2880 >>2891 >>2938 >>2959

>>12312722

You're missing one critical possibility that would negate your entire thesis:

 

IF Lin Wood was in bed with the cabal, then there could be a 'stand down' order given to all those he is mentioning, to not sue him and let him tweet and tweet all he wants, because what he is tweeting is disinfo meant to falsely accuse specific people so as to foment psycho-semantic defense responses protecting the 'accused'.

 

Or they are hoping people will think he's crazy, which will benefit the cabal.

 

It does NOT follow from a lack of lawsuits that the accusations are true. That argument is a fallacy.