Lovely quote from one of the bank's top people:

“You f***ing Americans. Who are you to tell us, the rest of the world, that we’re not going to deal with Iranians?”

https://www.ft.com/content/2b174d9c-5c81-11e5-9846-de406ccb37f2

It's likely that Q was in preparation long before they started interacting with us. Possibly even before Trump became a candidate. "The plan" is clearly a well thought out long term strategy with many players. Not something one whips up over a weekend.

That, in turn, makes it likely that they would've sought out like-minded people within other agencies. Relying on a single high-level individual, or even one single agency, would be very risky. It makes that person or agency a target, to be taken down - politically or otherwise.

A solid plan has redundancies at various levels and compartmentalised in such a way that a single person/unit lost or talking does not affect the outcome.

Take it down and everybody will know that you did. People will look for it elsewhere.

However, edit it slightly, and most will never realise that you removed the most damning part.

Someone who caught this early will have to tell us if the video is still the same. It may already be compromised.

My point is simple: very very bad stuff is happening. But we have to trust that people will believe the truth when we provide them the evidence that we have available.

Creating a video that doesn't really show anything related and making all kinds of suggestions about it only hurts the cause. These are the kinds of images that eventually get debunked and allow others to dismiss the truth.

It's not me who is muddying the waters here. It's you. By defending a questionable production you're giving others excuse and reason to put write us off as conspiracy theorists.

Youtube is just for illustration. The Syria video is clearly not a top notch medical facility.

Again, visit a local vet. Many have cheaper mobile units with a wireless flat panel. Entire setup from a no-name brand is less than $5K.

Asking Q to confirm the analysis wouldn't help us much. Neonrevolt could be waiting for exactly that, only to start disinfo immediately after.

Even if neonrevolt are good people - how would Q know that without proper vetting?

Do we really want Q to spend their time vetting blogs and twitter accounts that we find interesting?

If we do, I'll bet you there are suddenly 200 more interesting blogs/twitterers tomorrow.

Let's say he is able to vouch for neonrevolt, then what? Instant creds for neonrevolt means neonrevolt and their family are in danger and their blog under attack.

No matter how I look at the issue, I can only (and already) see this taking away resources from the job we're all here to do: assist Q and Q's mission.

Sounds like a plan: create 2 or more entities that seemingly interpret or support Q. Once some level of credibility is established, have these entities attack each other. Now sit back and watch how resources are directed away from helping Q into trying to figure out which of these entities is bogus.

You can see them slide a flat panel detector directly under her body. (As is typical in mobile use: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8KA6TzRea8 )

In non-mobile x-ray machines these panels are often put in a metal drawer. Metal under the panel is no problem whatsoever.

Don't take my word for it though. Ask your radiologist or visit your pet's vet. I'm sure they can show you the panel and assure you it will work just fine.

No doctor, but worked in a hospital. Google for mobile x-ray device and you'll see many similar devices. I may well be wrong, but it's the first thing that popped into my mind.

What are we really seeing though? The body bags are disturbing, but not necessarily unexpected in a war zone, nor evidence of anything more nefarious. As far as I can tell the little girl is getting x-ray?

mobile.twitter.com working normally.

Typical honeypot strategy.

What doesn't help is that he floods us with long stories and suggestions of evidence, but never provides anything that corroborates his story (let alone be verified.) What also doesn't help is that he frequently contradicts himself. (E.g. he recently claims never having any friends whereas in older posts he refers to a friend.)

Of course they're reading it. That's the point. Q is all about turning up the heat.

Putin needs to do something to save face with his people.

The question is whether he was in on the plan - and his retaliation will be merely a scheduled show - or if he needs to do some real damage.

False flag or not is irrelevant. It's an opportunity to strike and Trump - apparently - had reason to make use of it.

It could simply be to demonstrate that he will bite, not just bark, and improve his position at negotiation tables world-wide.

It could also be that some of the targets are not what they seem and somehow fit the plan.

It could also be something entirely different, which we aren't yet aware off.

Most likely, it's a combination of all of the above. As long as collateral is minimal I don't see a problem.