>>7337713 (pb)

agree… I'll note that concept of crisis actors being involved AND real dead bodies is not mutually exclusive. crisis actors in this case are classed with "operators" and fill the role of getting on TV to spread disinfo and confusion

also, concept that one or more of these events was actually 100% fake and others are not is also not mutually exclusive. if you have ideological scumbags willing to murder people, why would the same type of people not be willing to stage a fake event and get on TV to moan about it?

It seems reasonable me that the bigger the event and surrounding normie population, the more likely it is that there are real dead bodies mixed in with operators. The smaller and more controllable the environment, I am open to the possibility that there are only crisis actors / no dead bodies involved.

either way, these are all FFs and need to be stopped and the operators and their masters need to be sitting in GITMO

for anyone on this board questioning whether these are FF incidents…

doesn't the timing of these mean anything to you?

1) happening right before D presidential debates to give them talking points

2) giving them reasons to scream for Congress to stay in session (and thereby avoid possibility of recess appointments and arrests of congressmen/senators)

3) right after Q posts about FF awareness and August being hot…

4) etc., etc….

have such anons learning nothing of what their tactics are and what is going on?

sheesh.

carry on

>>7338670

it is curious that you believe that you can detect my tone via text… you have no idea what I am thinking or feeling

why are you taking my text personally? consider that before you post again

>>7338741

example: hasn't Sirhan Sirhan consistently maintained that he can't recall shooting RFK? And his lawyer (who is reputable) believes he did not do it?

The evidence points to many of these "whack jobs" being controllable. The means, however implausible to some anons, do not detract from the timeline, which is circumstantial evidence of FF in any event

>>7338755

I wasn't addressing you, apparently, when I posted since you are not questioning these are FFs

why take it personally? I'm not addressing you. I'm addressing those who question whether these are FFs and citing evidence.

I agree "sheesh" wasn't necessary.

>>7338695

agree. not every anon sees every post. need to keep these simple evidentiary points re. FFs in the breads

>>7338781

now, with emotions so high, might be a good time to:

1) NOT give in to the pressure to keep congress in session

2) arrest traitors in congress

3) provide evidence that these shootings are FFs

… then August would be really HOT (for (((them))) )

>>7339035

panic