TH3WH17ERABB17 -Q- Questions. White House Insider's postings -PART -9 -

a reply to: imthegoat

www.thedrive.com...

The helicopter was flying in the right location at the right time

I think the weatherman chap who took the image initially presumed it was a missile as it looked like one

Although debate is healthy...All this missile talk has me wishing I was strapped to one ready for launch

a reply to: pavil

By the looks of A's post-scary-thug Tweet, no, it doesn't appear that he feels intimidated at all. If the plot to scare the daylights out of him had worked, he should have left the country by now post-haste, paranoid, looking over his shoulder, crapping his drawers every hour and sucking his thumb like a little baby. But, no, he goes on Twitter and says $h1t that increases the likelihood that the goons will come back to tighten the thumb screws on him a little or, even worse! IDK, I have a wild imagination. What can I say?

a reply to: imthegoat

Anything is possible.

Possibly, but possibilities do not equal probabilities.

originally posted by: imthegoat
Maybe the other AF1 didnt take off from where we speculate?

It would have to follow a similar schedule to serve as a decoy. The news came out that Trump took off at around 12:30pm (EST) from Quebec City. "Red October" would expect it in their range about 6 hours later and not the following morning.

originally posted by: Whereismypassword
a reply to: imthegoat

www.thedrive.com...

The helicopter was flying in the right location at the right time

I think the weatherman chap who took the image initially presumed it was a missile as it looked like one

How is that the helicopter is moving away from the camera when it clearly started (at the bottom of the image) that's further away in cloud coverage, and ends with it being closer?

Also, how do you explain the large plume of light within the clouds (at start)? If it were beacon strobes on an aircraft it would come off as a someone dotted/broken line of light (just like every other aircraft picture) and that large expansion of light at the origin wouldnt be present.

originally posted by: PokeyJoe
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Wait, I thought Mueller wasnt eligible to lead the FBI anyway? Wasnt he in-eligible because he has already held the position in the past? I could have sworn that is what I read somewhere. Also, does it take 8 hours to tell a man that he will not be getting a particular job?

Correct. He was not eligible. Much speculation about the possibility that he was called back up as a Marine Officer, and flipped to grey hat. In my opinion, that might account for a lot of weirdness regarding indictments of Russians that may seem not at all logical on it's face. But, it also may open doors for the "discovery" process and admissibility of evidence in later proceedings. They seem to be being very scrupulous about following the legal rules...

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: imthegoat
Maybe the other AF1 didnt take off from where we speculate?

It would have to follow a similar schedule to serve as a decoy. The news came out that Trump took off at around 12:30pm (EST) from Quebec City. "Red October" would expect it in their range about 6 hours later and not the following morning.

Maybe we think differently. Launching a decoy at the same time as the original, from the same location, wouldnt be hard to ascertain which one was real. As I imagine people could see which aircraft Trump walked onto. Same goes for having the "decoy take off at a different location, too. So none of it makes a lick of sense.

originally posted by: Sabrechucker
Although debate is healthy...All this missile talk has me wishing I was strapped to one ready for launch

Right?! ...sure does distract from the plethora of info in the other recent drops. Any idea what we’re looking for in the 99 pages of the FISC Doc linked in the latest Q post?

a reply to: Sabrechucker

Nicholas Rasmussen also joined Department of State in 1991 as a PMI (Presidential Management Intern) in 1991 and was Special Assistant to the President to BHO.

He supported the negotiation and implementation of the U.S.-North Korea Agreed Framework as well as Special Assistant to the State Department’s Middle East Coordinator, Ambassador Dennis Ross, working on the Arab-Israeli peace process.

Sounds like he was the guy who made sure things DIDNT work for the people?

PMI turned up in one of my recent decodes but cant find it at the mo.


All above from your link Sabre!

originally posted by: nowayreally

originally posted by: Sabrechucker
Although debate is healthy...All this missile talk has me wishing I was strapped to one ready for launch

Right?! ...sure does distract from the plethora of info in the other recent drops. Any idea what we’re looking for in the 99 pages of the FISC Doc linked in the latest Q post?

A missile being launched at POTUS from rogue actors (as claimed) sure should take up a lot more forum space considering the implications, if that's really what we're to believe.

Same goes for the alleged attempted assassination that took out the SS agent.

originally posted by: imthegoat
Maybe we think differently. Launching a decoy at the same time as the original, from the same location, wouldnt be hard to ascertain which one was real. As I imagine people could see which aircraft Trump walked onto. Same goes for having the "decoy take off at a different location, too. So none of it makes a lick of sense.

You are the one who brought up the "other AF1".

If none of it makes a lick of sense then why believe that that image is a missile shot at AF1?

a reply to: nowayreally

it's a good debate. And no I have only got as far as trying to find out what may have been redacted after 50 u s c 1880

a reply to: imthegoat

I agree good debate...Just hope it's been established it was a missile

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: imthegoat
Maybe we think differently. Launching a decoy at the same time as the original, from the same location, wouldnt be hard to ascertain which one was real. As I imagine people could see which aircraft Trump walked onto. Same goes for having the "decoy take off at a different location, too. So none of it makes a lick of sense.

You are the one who brought up the "other AF1".

If none of it makes a lick of sense then why believe that that image is a missile shot at AF1?

I never said I believed it was shot at AF1. I simply made a statement about there being two AF1 planes. You started with it being shot at AF1. 👍

a reply to: nowayreally


Are you referring to post #1764 @ qanon.pub... ? That's the last one from my vantage point.

a reply to: RelSciHistItSufi

He does seem to have been credited with the worsening of global affairs.


Picture of him here with comey,brennan,clapper...could he be the final piece

originally posted by: carewemust
From this tweet, it appears that Avenatti is following Q posts. And is paranoid.

mobile.twitter.com...

It's interesting that the photo posted by Avenetti is not mirrored like Q's photo is.

I would say exactly the reverse. Q's pic is of a reflection in an actual physical mirror. The radio or phone or whatever is being held in his left hand. The right hand has something sticking out from between fingers in a somewhat clenched hand. Note the watch, on the radio/ancient Nokia phone side. Typically watches are designed for and worn on the left wrist.

originally posted by: imthegoat
You started with it being shot at AF1. 👍

No, Q started that.

I, and others, said AF1 wasn't in the area and you said that we have to consider that there is another AF1.

That would only come into play if it was used as a decoy. If it was nowhere near the area than it is a moot point to take into consideration.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: imthegoat
You started with it being shot at AF1. 👍

No, Q started that.

I, and others, said AF1 wasn't in the area and you said that we have to consider that there is another AF1.

That would only come into play if it was used as a decoy. If it was nowhere near the area than it is a moot point to take into consideration.

Quit being so literal. When I said you started it, I meant you started it in the conversation we were having. I made a statement just to cover the facts. I said nothing about AF1 being targeted until you did.