Two giant J6 dogs not barking

Politics
1
  1. Why hasn’t the FBI tracked down the January 5 pipe bomber?

Pipe bombs at the Republican and Democratic Party buildings were allegedly placed there on the evening of January 5. After allegedly spending the night at these locations, one of the bombs was discovered by “shear luck” about an hour before protestors got into the capitol.

The Capitol was evacuated because of the RNC bomb, not the result of trespassers. That was confirmed by testimony from the Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund:

“So the assault on the Capitol is not what caused the evacuations of those buildings? The discovery of those pipe bombs is what caused the evacuations of those?” asked Republican Oklahoma Sen. James Lankford.

“That is correct,” said Sund.
Discovery of RNC pipe bomb, not Capitol trespassers, prompted congressional evacuations | Washington Examiner

A video released by the FBI in September shows the bomber suspect using a cell phone. The FBI should be able to track the phone and its owner. Why haven’t they done that by now?

https://www.fbi.gov/video-repository/jan-5-pipe-bomb-footage-of-suspect-3-090821.mp4/view

The bomber apparently walked through one of the highest concentrations of security cameras in the country, but no video show him/her/it entering or exiting a building or a car has been released.

Is the FBI incredibly incompetent? Or do they really want to hide the true origin of the pipe bombs?

  1. Why is there no hunt for Q?

The mainstream media has derided Q and Q supporters (labeled as QAnon) as dangerous and delusional. Soon after January 6, they claimed that Q and Q supporters were responsible for a “deadly insurrection”. As the alleged lead conspirator and organizer, Q should be top the FBI most wanted list for questioning and likely prosecution. Given the capabilities of the FBI and NSA to intercept and track communications, they should have no trouble finding the source of the Q statements.

The lack of interest in finding Q is the second giant dog not barking.

Of course there are many other dogs not barking. For example, why is there no investigation into the origin of the murder-by-fire-extinguisher narrative? Why did it take weeks for federal authorities to admit there were no injuries to the body of Officer Sicknick consistent with bludgeoning with a fire extinguisher when that should have been obvious from day one? How did the disinformation about the officer’s death appear in the impeachment charges?

For background on death-by-fire-extinguisher hoax see this earlier thread:

Will we ever get any real investigation into the events around January 6?

3 Likes
2

Good questions all. I can answer the one about the false bludgeoning story. They needed a valiant martyr to lie in state at the Capital. Died of a stroke (natural causes) the day after, with no blunt force trauma, doesn’t justify the narrative of a hero, felled defending democracy itself from the unwashed barbarian horde, receiving the honor of laying in state in the Capital building. Once they had the display and bestowed the honor, admitting that it was a false narrative is rather inconvenient.

4 Likes
3

are you sure there isn’t?

if there was, would you expect the FBI to tell you?

4

Yes, the false narrative about the death of Officer Sicknick was necessary so that Democrats and the media could talk about a “deadly insurrection”. While it is possible that the original report was “fog of war” rumor, the fact that federal authorities took weeks to correct amounts to deliberate disinformation.

Democrats and the media go on rants about combatting “misinformation”, but they have had a profound disinterest in correcting the lies and disinformation surrounding the death of Officer Sicknick.

3 Likes
5

I thought it was pretty much decided that Ron Watkins was Q?

1 Like
6

You would think that the media would be hyperventilating about the finding the dastardly Q and demanding answers from the FBI, but they are not.

I suspect that any private inquiries have been met with “nothing to see here, move on”.

What else would explain the profound lack of media interest in finding Q?

7

You still occasionally hear this referred to as a deadly insurrection. I suppose their argument is “yeah, it was deadly. We killed one of them”.

3 Likes
8

Yes, that is one theory. If there is any real evidence to support that theory, then why hasn’t the FBI got a warrant and searched his computers and offices?

They have been more than happy to search the homes of average people who went to Washington on January 6.

2 Likes
9

Yes, deadly protests = police shot one of the protestors dead.

1 Like
10

did Q do anything illegal? As far as I’ve seen, Q is only guilty of spreading and/or creating conspiracy theories for the gullible to consume. I am unaware of any evidence that shows the Q drops had any part in planning the protest or telling people to enter the capitol.

11

Proof a crime is not required for a search warrant or questioning. The average guy in New York had his apartment torn apart apparently because he went to Washington on January 6.

The narrative from Democrats is that January 6 was a deadly insurrection. The fact that the FBI has made no apparent attempt to find or arrest Q shows that is not true. To date no one has been charged for insurrection, sedition, or treason.

Q has all the appearances of FBI false flag or sting operation from what I can see. They needed a pretext to arrest hundreds of people and to claim a dangerous conspiracy that was a threat to the government. Q and the murder-by-fire-extinguisher hoax provided that pretext.

1 Like
12

Well, maybe someone is exaggerating Q’s influence in yet another attempt to distract from the true criminals of the failed insurrection.

You see, the articles don’t support the assertion in your post that Q was a “lead conspirator and organizer”. In fact, the only one saying this seems to be you.

Was Q a clearing house? Sure. A meeting place? You bet. An inspiration? Without a doubt. A lead conspirator and organizer? Doesn’t look like it.

Besides, Q doesn’t exist, and even if it did, nobody on the right has even heard of it. Remember?

You’d probably do better going back to saying that it was all an ANTIFA false flag.

13

Atta boy!

2 Likes
14

It’s not a crime to spread conspiracies online. Q is almost certainly Ron Watkins - the son of the owner of 4chan - and there’s no evidence to suggest he committed any crimes.

1 Like
15

Q is/was internet trolling with role playing fantasies. I’m sorry a portion of your political allies fell for it. Some on this board still trust it.

16

You have to admire the simple beauty of it though. In one fell swoop, the OP attempts to tie up 2 of the most embarrassing features of recent right wing history: the failed insurrection and Qanon.

Of course Trump is an actual guy walking around. Not much they can do about him.

1 Like
17

Yes! It was done by Nancy Pelosi, who is the Speaker of the House and where the buck stops in security. The Sergeant of Arms of the House answers to her and she concluded that this was a violent insurrection of Trump supporters that viciously murdered Officer Sicknick with a fire extinguisher during a violent insurrection, where nobody was armed. That about sums up January 6th…according to the lib scenario of the entire day.

Now to truly answer your question…no.

18

Because no one has any idea who it was.

We know who Q is.

What the Jim and Ron Watkins did isn’t illegal.

They broke no law.

19

There was a documentary about it and everything.

20

have you not seen this?