Q Anon: (5/2/18) FRiendly Freeper Collaboration

qanon.pub ^ | 5/2/2018 | FReepers, vanity

[ransomnote]

This thread is a friendly collaborative place for FReepers to analyze information and share opinons. FReepers have a wide variety of reasons for investigating Q Anon content; this is not the appropriate place to criticize or badger those who choose to use some of their time in this manner.

If you are new to Q Anon, the three links below provide overviews to help answer the questions, "Who is Q?" and "Why read Q drops?".

Is Trump Staging a Counter-Coup? [Q explained?]>
Note: The above thread has been locked for disruptive comments, but post #1 includes a strong, concise Who/What/Where overview.

Q Anon: A Freeper's post re the "new Parallel Construct that Trump has created"

First post to “Q” ping list. Please read and let me know if you want off or on it

You can locate Q Anon threads by searching the key word "Qanon" using the search window in the upper right of Free Republic's forum page.

If you haven't seen it yet, President John F. Kennedy's excellent speech regarding secret societies, as well as comments about the press, is located at the following link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdMbmdFOvTs

A helpful FReeper passed along the following link to a group that goes live on Youtube when Q drops are released. Each live stream video remains active as long as they have new insights or information or guests to share information. You can look for any live stream videos in progress or recordings of their prior videos at the link:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWW3gYCvKS412p7o6qSK5gg

The following link displays President Trump's tweets and Q Anon drops in one table in chronological order:
https://anonsw.github.io/qtmerge

Q "drops" (i.e., posts) can be read with their original formatting on various websites. Sometimes the Q drop websites come under cyber attack or stop updating. This week, I've been using the following link:
https://qanon.pub

Q drops (i.e., posts) often use unfamiliar acronyms. Swordmaker maintains a list of acronym definitions to help FReepers understand Q drop text. The master list of acronyms is stored on Swordmaker's profile page. It's really great to have a convenient place to find definitions and explanations of terms used in the drops. Here is the link:
http://www.freerepublic.com/~swordmaker/index

Within our threads, Swordmaker posts updates featuring the latest terms added to the lexicon - you can find his updates on threads by looking for this silver Q graphic:

SkyPilot has been collecting Q Anon information into one interesting, detailed, "story of Q" post which I'll place here:
https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3633313/posts?page=163#163

Here's a handy link for those who would like to read what people on Twitter are Tweeting about Q Anon:
Click to read what Tweeters are saying about Q Anon

For those who want a little uplifting video which outlines the big picture that we are now striving for, here's a video from 2016 in which candidate Donald Trump outlines what he wants for Americans and America and his promises if elected.
This Video Will Get Donald Trump Elected

If you'd like to communicate your support for President Trump's efforts to "red-pill" Americans, you may want to use the link Hoosiermama posted which provides you with and email page - you can send the president an email. Here's the link:
Email support for President Trump

[CJ Wolf]

“Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.” ― Mark Twain.

[JockoManning]

Such sweetness and light!

Just as a psychological question ... where does all the intense emotionality, hostility, insulting cheekiness come from when this topic comes up?

It is NOT necessary to have a mature intellectual dialogue! Sheesh.

I know, I'm well aware that FR threads too often veer into Romper Room emotionalities.

[CJ Wolf]

Everyone saw what happened but the watched 50 different movies. The emotional aspect comes from what happened and the desire to make rational sense of it despite what was told to us.

[Swordmaker]

You asserted that there were no steel columns in the center of the towers.

MHGinTN, I did not assert anything of the kind. I challenge you to find any such claim from me that asserts that.

I stated that the MAIN FLOOR TRUSSES, those that supported the floors, which is where the fires weakened the steel, were NOT buried in CONCRETE. We were discussing the support of the FLOORS, not the central services column. I studied this event quite thoroughly in the months and years following 911. I could show you diagrams of how that core was built as well, but that was NOT THE TOPIC OF THE CASCADING FAILURE AND COLLAPSING OF THE FLOORS.

Do NOT PUT IMPLIED WORDS IN MY POSTS, OR MISDIRECTION. The Main Trusses which failed are only cleated to the curtain wall support and to the central service column. How that central column was built was NEVER BROUGHT INTO DISCUSSION OF HOW THE FLOORS COLLAPSED.

That claim that the central column steel was never found is another lie from the tin foil hat brigade. The famous CROSS memorial that was found in the wreckage is part of that steel. A section of that steel was carried around the country as a traveling memorial to the victims. I saw it. A steel iBeam. It was at the California State Fair.

Please, MHGinTN. . . READ WHAT I SAID... superheated air was ejected from each floor as it pancaked and compressed the air in that floor. I did not go into extreme detail of what that superheated air carried with it. However, I am WELL aware that it was a pyroclastic cloud and it WAS PRESENT. What in hell do you think made the dust which covered all of NYC?

[JockoManning]

I have a lot of emotions about the event and the globalist perpetrators. That doesn't generalize to my feeling upset and angry with folks who discuss it with me from different perspectives than mine.

Somehow the 'ownership' of the event and words others say about the event seems to be a very emotionally laden personal thing for some people--justifying their hostility against those whose opinions about it differ from their own.

[JockoManning]

However, I am WELL aware that it was a pyroclastic cloud and it WAS PRESENT. What in hell do you think made the dust which covered all of NYC?

I haven't seen any 'fool proof' explanation for that from any side.

[CJ Wolf]

It is a sticky wicket to chat about. Recognize that and the fact that nothing will change a mind and you must eventually come to the conclusion that is most apparent.

[JockoManning]

you must eventually come to the conclusion that is most apparent.

Which, in your wording, would be exactly what?

[MHGinTN]

The towers BOTH 'collapsed' at NEAR free-fall. I have done the math. And yes, usually things fall on a direct line aligned with the radii of the Earth ... gravity. The upper 35 floors of one tower tipped fifteen to seventeen degrees off of vertical, but that mass did not arrive at the street over which it tipped. Can you tell me why?

Your alinsky tactics are showing. And you know what Arthur C. Clark said regarding technology and magic ...

[CJ Wolf]

Its arguing for arguing sake. There is no changing a mind in this case. It’s not even a slim chance unless your talking to a millennial. It happened almost 20 years ago. It’s now so diluted in opinion and “facts” which people choose to believe or not. It’s like arguing about who killed JFK at this point.

[MHGinTN]

Nice try, probably took a table full of CIA liars to fabricate it ... there was NO SPERHEATED AIR IN THE COLLAPSE. The smoke had turned dark before the towers collapsed. And if the floors had pancaked THAT WOULD HAVE GENERATED A SUPER HEATED DUST CLOUD ... but there was no such cloud, as evidenced by persons who were 'ejected' away from the site or walked out of the dust cloud with their clothes covered in dust but not in the least singed.

Sorry, that one won't fly. Try something else.

[JockoManning]

Its arguing for arguing sake. There is no changing a mind in this case. It’s not even a slim chance unless your talking to a millennial. It happened almost 20 years ago. It’s now so diluted in opinion and “facts” which people choose to believe or not. It’s like arguing about who killed JFK at this point.

Plenty true, that. It does make it difficult-to-impossible to brainstorm with people about the topic.

[JockoManning]

Fascinating points, for sure, imho.

[Swordmaker]

That does it. You are disingenuous and not to be trusted. You lie about Dr Woods background and try to convince people to ignore her wise counsel on 911, so you are no longer credible. And that is disappointing since I heretofore enjoyed your work at FR.

Where have I lied about Dr. Wood? She is no longer a professor. She has a total of 23 peer reviewed papers to her name, all of which STOPPED being published in 2004, and she is a proponent of a discredited wacko pseudo-scientist who has admitted faking some of his evidence. She is NO LONGER PRACTICING that I can find, except on fringe sites where she uses her degrees to lend them credibility. Have degree will speak.

She embraces the discredited anti-gravity/metal gellification Hutchison Effect to explain what happened to the WTC. It's not reproducible. . . even if Hutchison stumbled onto something. Until someone ELSE can reproduce what Hutchison has claimed to have done, it isn't real. Even she couldn't do it with her degrees. That's not science.

Wood's EXPOSTULATING OUTSIDE HER FIELD OF EXPERTISE and experience! That pretty much sums up the quality of her opinions.

. . .try to convince people to ignore her wise counsel on 911. . .

What "wise counsel," MHGinTN? Is it this "wise counsel" you refer to?

"9/11 was a demonstration of a new technology; free energy."—Dr. Judy Wood.

That's just one example Dr. Wood's "wise counsel on 911" and it's just one example of why she doesn't get very far in my book. Wood requires the use of an unproven "science" of which she has absolutely zero evidence, except the word of an admitted faker, to prove her thesis.

That does not make her wise, or at all credible, in my opinion.

I'd hate to apply her credibility to you.

I am still open to "The Who" of 911. . .

But I don't have to invent complicated conspiracies involving hundreds or thousands of co-conspirators to accomplish the bringing down of the towers and the attack on the Pentagon, or use pseudo-scientific gelatinized steel as Dr. Wood is proposing with Hutchison, or kidnapping four planeloads of passengers only to kill them retail later, just so someone can either hit targets with missiles faked up to look like those planes and then detonate pre-planted coordinated demolition charges, and convince millions of eye-witnesses they really didn't see what they saw, AND plant appropriate aircraft parts at the forensically appropriate locations inside the Pentagon and on the lawn, when a perfectly logical and physically workable solution does the job, simply, easily, with only 19 men (who ever they are), and most importantly cheaply. . . ALL WITHOUT DOING ALL THOSE IDIOTIC COMPLICATED CIRCUMLOCUTIONS which are fraught with too many opportunities for failure built into them.

Use the KISS principle. . . Keep It Simple, Stupid.

I also believe in Saint Murphy who once observed: "Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong." And by making something so complicated, it will fall apart of its own complicated weight.

[Swordmaker]

Qx has known BS and BA degreed folks who were much smarter and more accurate to reality than their PhD COLLEAGUES. imhoh, you are as fast and loose with facts about Dr Woods with your negative attitude toward her as you are accusing her of being with the facts of 9/11.

Every fact on Dr. Wood comes from her own website and Bio page. Sorry if YOU don't like them. They are right there in plai—n sight. You just have to know what you are looking at. . . she outs herself as an adherent of pseudo-science in claiming that the WTC was brought down by some application of the Hutchison effect.

"9/11 was a demonstration of a new technology; free energy." — Dr. Judy Wood

Those are HER words from her own website.

She has ZERO scientific or engineering credibility with that statement. She shot herself in the foot with any credible scientific or engineering organization.

[Swordmaker]

I counted the fall, too. My count matched Judy Wood’s. I have no explanation for our discrepancy.

Counted or TIMED, with a stopwatch? Many of the conspiracy sites use a sped up video. Easy to do. Remove frames. Of course, the opposite is also easy to do, add frames.

[JockoManning]

imho, ignorance or disbelief about zero-point energy physics is no excuse for claiming someone is a kook.

A round, spherical earth was the kook position at one point.

There have been enough reputable reports of different kinds of zero-point energy systems that, imho, a wise person would at least have a wait and see attitude instead of a derisive hostile one.

There are evidently 3-4 DIFFERENT zero-point energy systems that the oligarchy has kept out of the public arena.

I think POTUS even referred obliquely to such since his election.

I realize you are 1,000% convinced that you are right in such matters and everyone else is catestrophically, stupidly, cluelessly, irrationally etc. WRONG.

I don't hold the same perspective on how right you are. I don't know how right and wrong you are. I know you are not as correct as you seem to think you are.

A search for truth as in most of life, involves on the wisdom side--a desperate need for GREAT HUMILITY.

[JockoManning]

timed with a stopwatch. I saw no evidence it was a speeded up video.

[RitaOK]

<< “..there was no “original Q”, Rita.” >>

If you aren’t worn out from your debate up thread, please find my reply at post #530, on the subject of White Rabbit. BTW, thanks for your reply.

I sent it to Jocko, somehow.

[Swordmaker]

Your alinsky tactics are showing. And you know what Arthur C. Clark said regarding technology and magic ...

I am not using any alinsky tactics. I resent your insinuation that I am. I also know Arthur C. Clarke's 3rd Law. Now give your attacks a rest. . . I bet you haven't bothered to look for TWA-800, have you?

Just because something is explicable in terms of REAL physics doesn't mean the Deep State wasn't behind it, MHGinTN.

What doesn't hold water is building a house of cards conspiracy involving every single architect, physicist, and engineer in the country except for a few fringe kooks who claim to KNOW the truth and can "prove" it, but then have to invoke MAGICAL science to do it.

You may be right, but you lose everyone who may be inclined to listen to you when you embrace those kind of lame brained kook theories.

Dr. Wood embraces far more of the fringe than just that... it looks as if it's fringe, she's there. It doesn't help. I was going to list some of what she's included on her site, but it's just not worth it. Multiple appearances with Hutchison endorsing his discoveries? Speaking with him at symposia? Speaking FOR him at conferences? Cold Fusion, Micronukes v. Thermite bombs being used on WTC, Star Wars Directed Energy Weapons, Gelifications of metals... really? Art Bell appearances? Filing Pro Per Qui Nam lawsuits? I could go on and on. She's quite a rabbit hole all on her own to go down. Wood is no serious scientist, perhaps once, but not now.