Anonymous ID: 0dff12 Oct. 4, 2018, 1:46 a.m. No.3326087   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>6115

Some thoughts on Q's "sponsor?" post.

 

What if Q is suggesting the new documents show evidence that the Saudi's were NOT the sponsors of 9/11? We know it was likely Israel that could be linked financially to 9/11. That info would be tangible evidence to shatter the bullshit official narrative.

 

But too much of BOOM, yes. We're not at the stage yet where Israel's dirt can be front page news ( unforfunately.)

 

But what if perhaps these documents at the very least show that the funding DIDN'T come from the Saudis? That lays the foundation for future 9/11 disclosure and sows seeds of doubt in the heads of the morons that still think Israel had nothing to do with 9/11.

 

Of course the Blumenthal connection makes perfect sense too. But double meanings can't be dismissed.

Anonymous ID: 0dff12 Oct. 4, 2018, 1:55 a.m. No.3326133   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>3326115

The Dems can't do shit without their ((( owners' ))) approval, and no way would they allow that.

 

Besides, i highly doubt exposing Dubya and the neocons would influence people to vote blue. It's understood POTUS has no connection to the old regime.

Anonymous ID: 0dff12 Oct. 4, 2018, 2:10 a.m. No.3326217   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>3326131

I can't see the Bush swamp being exposed without the Mossad and B'nai Brith evidence leaking out too.

 

Which is exactly why I don't think the Dems are actively pushing for it.