One of the things we might consider is perhaps we lit the fires to evacuate civilians from the area intentionally— plenty of DUMBs in CO, perhaps some of our military is going to exfil tunnel people, etc
>>15284955
Place RRN into its context in the info war. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it’s said Pelosi and others were in Gitmo, but they were seen in public after. So to me, it functions as a honeytrap for anons who are addicted to quick resolutions and can’t or don’t bother to do a basic dig.
Nobody’s implying we aren’t watching a play. Nevertheless, just because one thing is true (Biden’s ear, etc) doesn’t mean the other is (RRN is fact). Our work isn’t just to tweet quote whatever is on the surface, it’s to dig and to sus out the truth, and with RRN, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence but it provides none, like a man speaking in tongues with no-one to interpret; so, even if it IS true, it’s not useful here, and functions as a distraction. Agree?
So, shills will argue that this to have legal protection from libel. Either way, it doesn’t matter, it’s not verifiable, just dust in the wind.