If the time critical portion of the message is in this format way at the end, even after the signature, then that would say a lot worse things about the condition of our military than Ive heard about.
Most of the Q communications are just someone casually writing a note to a reader, he can make up any format he wants just like you might to someone you were writing to. This is supposedly some military(or NSA?) format. There are rules as to the way things are formatted and have to be delivered. There is a logic behind the order information the is transmitted. Giving a critical piece of information (imminent and specific terror threat) wouldnt logically just be tacked on ONLY at the the end after your sig.
What Im saying is that the military/NSA format messages are one of the following:
1. This is a highly redacted portion of a proper message of which we are not seeing the totality.
2. This form of communication is some sort of extremely inefficient and clumsy bastardization of logical formats developed under some boondoggle government contract that should be abandoned as soon as possible.
3. Delta does not mean (imminent and specific terror threat) in this usage but could be used as part of something else that is similar in this signature and we arent understanding like "[The other]Q(leader of the antiterrorism command post)". It could mean something else all together different, some sort of command or something that viewers in the know are told to watch for.
4. Weve just busted the most conspiracy knowledgeable and convincing larper to have ever logged in to the internet.
1. Doesnt make much sense. These spots would be a strange place to cut the message to edit, both at the beginning and the end. At first one might believe that it was just a rapid editing error as he knew he was under attack but hes used a similar format in the past when he wasnt in a hurry and under the added stress. Editing related issues also seem unlikely given the speed those last messages all came in as there was no time.
2.Always possible in any situation where government funds are spent.
3.Does not mean "imminent and specific terror threat" in this usage and we are missing something.
4.Well, I guess I cant prove he is or isnt, Im sure hoping I havent been fooled this far. Ive been pretty confident so far. If it comes out confirmed as (imminent specific) and not redacted, this will be so wildly an unlikely claim that, unless a knowledgeable Freeper I trust confirms to me that answer 2 was also involved, my belief would be shattered.
As long as something significant happens in 12 hours, I guess I dont really care.