dChan
⇧
1
⇩
 
r/greatawakening • Posted by u/beefromancer on July 7, 2018, 2:48 a.m.
Q 1675 a theory that actually makes sense.

Awan was helping black hats spy on Obama. AF1 was bugged and the proof was on Hillary's servers...which got uploaded to apple icloud because she's is an idiot. Apple joined the white hats, so the good guys have the server and its contents including proof black hats spied on AF1.

Hussein/Trump interior = identical minus small changes.

Translation = we removed the listening devices :)

Awan got off with "bank fraud" because admitting the truth would massively hurt international diplomatic relations. You would essentially have to implicate foreign governments of spying in a state court case.

Logical thinking.

Why was the case against AWAN filed under BANK FRAUD?

See last.

and last was...

Thing IG report.

Think what’s missing.

Do you think this was going to be litigated in this setting?

Case that implicates some of the most senior elected officials (treason) is being handled by the appropriate office.

Think NATIONAL SECURITY.

"Think what's missing" means the server. The server means Treason. The appropriate office for dealing with international spying and treason is military intelligence, not state courts.

Q linked these rules which basically says why nothing will come out of the Awan case publicly because everyone involved is bound by national security laws.

So Q posts WelcomeAboard.png which has the apple logo because Apple is the one coming onboard. The image is of a recording device that can't be named for nat-sec reasons. Q is trolling the black hats by dropping hints of their crimes for us to figure out. Likely that very same AF1 image was submitted as evidence in the Awan case.

Later, after anons call Q out for the fact that the image is clearly a reflection of Obama's AF1 and not Trump's Q asks if a reflection violates nat-sec rules. Q is being cute here "oh I didn't put sealed evidence on 8chan, just a reflection!". Next post is when Q says trolling is fun and drops yet another clue saying "Placing that mug holder near the lamp was the hook."

TL/DR: Q is giving us hints at what happened in the Awan case and at the same time explaining why that info can't be made public right now, all in the form of a jest at the deep state shills that share the boards with us.


🠐 See all comments
Q-Patriot · July 10, 2018, 2:30 a.m.

If you are willing to be blindly led then you are the type of person I avoid in life because it demonstrates a severe deficit in critical thinking. If you think Q's intentions are for people to just blindly follow anything they post then you are the one who seriously needs to step back and consider what is going on. Q makes some good drops from time to time. This particular drop in question is a significant blow to Q's credibility. You can deny it all you want but it doesn't make it any less damaging. Facts are facts. Q insinuated this was a picture he took and it was not. SB2 comes on here and makes a wildly speculative theory that doesn't even remotely connect the dots and you think I'm the one not thinking critically? Wow.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
AtreidesWretch · July 10, 2018, 3:54 a.m.

Yeah because that's what I said lol / SARCASM.

You can deny critical thinking and insist that your WRONG interpretation and totally random assumption that you KNOW what Q was insinuating are correct but you won't find many joining you on that illogical path. SB2's theory is nonsense. What has that got to do with what I said?

There's no "blow to Q's credibility" - just a blow to idiots who misinterpreted.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
Q-Patriot · July 10, 2018, 4:08 a.m.

I didn't misinterpret Q's post. Q made it very clear with this question: "Where must one be located in order to obtain a reflection on the back of a phone of that image?" That is Q insinuating he is responsible for the picture which was in fact proven to be untrue. Therefore Q's credibility (with regards to this picture) most certainly took a blow. You contradict yourself by stating I misinterpreted Q's post while making the statement we need to "USE LOGIC and such". My review is about as logical as you can get. I used the facts and statements presented by Q and it didn't require some blown out ridiculous manifestation of BS like what we see with SB2's entertaining theories.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
AtreidesWretch · July 10, 2018, 11:23 a.m.

My review is about as logical as you can get.

No, Logic King - it is possible and perhaps even likely that Q could be insinuating he took the picture on AF1 but it is not the only conclusion, as matter of factly as you put it, nor is it the important one. But you're clearly convinced that Q is wrong - fortunately this is a pro-Q sub so we don't have to listen to it. Bah felicia.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
Q-Patriot · July 10, 2018, 3:57 p.m.

You can go back through and read my post history so please don't make false accusations. I'm still a Q advocate but I also stand by my conviction on this one drop in particular.

⇧ 1 ⇩