They've been making a shit ton of noise trying to insinuate that they're insiders without any direct proof, trying to get people to recognize them as being a trustworthy source of information very quickly. It's all sketchy as fuck to me.
I'm curious. Around when did these attacks start?
>A bill to amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to allow the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to provide capitalization grants to States to establish revolving funds to provide hazard mitigation assistance to reduce risks from disasters and natural hazards, and other related environmental harm.
This STORM act?
And what exactly does allocating funding to states for dealing with natural disasters have to do with troops in DC?
I won't disagree with (or really even comment on) any of what you've said there.
You've done nothing at all to explain how this act is related though. I'm not seeing anything compelling here deeper than the name of the act that actually ties it to any of these ideas. It's a pretty flimsy theory atm.
>The Q line years ago about disinformation being necessary, really cut against my idea of an awakening to truths.
You're imaging your role as observer to be a neutral position, able to discern truth and untruth each on their own merits alone. In reality the "software" that you use to observe information is imperfect, and much of it corrupted (both intentionally and naturally). You would not be capable of properly observing absolute truth unless you yourself were absolutely pure.