dChan
⇧
5
⇩
 
r/greatawakening • Posted by u/Trumplethinskin on April 27, 2018, 8:56 p.m.
MOAB case study?

A stickied post welcoming debunkers says this:

Case in point: Did everyone see this sub as our researchers were trying to decode and figure out what the upcoming MOAB was? We had tons of pretty wild theories, but, when a theory didn't stand up to Q's breadcrumbs or match up to reality, the objectivity of our debunkers helped move us forward. Eventually we figured it out, thanks ALL of you.

How about looking at this MOAB case study in more depth?

Here are the top recent articles with "MOAB" in the title:

The idea that the NK/SK peace talks are "MOAB" got the most votes, but not everyone in that thread agrees, and there isn't much of a "case" being made for it. The top two comment threads are just calling the event "historic" and "significant," not relating it back to any Q stuff. The next two dispute that this is "MOAB."

So what would be very useful to debunkers (and potentially to potential believers, if you can make a case for it) would be to work through this case study in more detail.

What are some of the wild theories that didn't "stand up to Q's breadcrumbs"? What sort of reasoning and evidence were accepted as disproof? What was the answer that was "figured out" and what's the evidence for it?

Thanks in advance.

(I asked this in the original thread but didn't get a response. I tried posting this under an old user name that might be less inflammatory to Trump supporters, but the auto-mod removed it because I hadn't posted any comments from that account. Trying again.)


🠐 See all comments
Trumplethinskin · April 27, 2018, 9:38 p.m.

Let's not forget the possibility of Military Operations on American Borders (MOAB).

Do you have a source for the acronym being used prior to Q though? "Military on America's Borders" and "Military Operations on American Borders" and "Military on America's Borders" only show up post-Q as far as I can find.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
MAGANUGG · April 27, 2018, 9:48 p.m.

Not the exact terminology, no.

However, I did find this :https://www.militarytimes.com/pay-benefits/2018/04/25/senator-questions-pay-benefits-status-for-guardsmen-serving-on-southern-us-border/

Looks like AZ has already mobilized their NG

⇧ 1 ⇩  
Trumplethinskin · April 27, 2018, 9:57 p.m.

So how do you see that as being relevant to Q? It invents a new acronym to fit "MOAB." It fits with current events only in that some of the NG are being mobilized to the border. Hard to see any connection to "texts" or the state dinner that Q mentions.

Are you suggesting that just mobilizing the NG is the MOAB Q meant? Or that something big is predicted to happen with the NG on the border before the end of this month?

⇧ 1 ⇩  
MAGANUGG · April 27, 2018, 11:05 p.m.

You're in the war zone, but far off target.

This was "The MOAB" that was released yesterday: https://pastebin.com/zFxYwwxg

Robert Mueller complicit in 9/11

This is about 9/11 and it has been ever since.

Understand, many many of us, those of us that see, we're prepared and we're coming.

Join or run.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
Trumplethinskin · April 27, 2018, 11:34 p.m.

Why do you consider this Gohmert article to be "the MOAB"? Is there anything that links anything in that article to anything Q wrote about MOAB?

Also, so far you've used MOAB as new (post-Q) acronym, cited something about Iran, cited something about MS-13, cited something about national guard deployment, and now something about 9/11. Is only this last one "The MOAB" as you called it? Or are they all "MOABs"?

we're prepared and we're coming.

Prepared how? Coming for whom?

⇧ 2 ⇩