Alarming Cybersecurity Stats: What You Need To Know For 2021 (from march)
Looking for recent cyber crime statistics? We constantly update this huge list of cybersecurity statistics from trusted sources.
https://www.comparitech.com/vpn/cybersecurity-cyber-crime-statistics-facts-trends/
Hackers on loose as 9,000 data leaks a year recorded
Colossal Ransomware Attack Hits Hundreds of Businesses in 17 Countries
A Second Massive LinkedIn Breach Exposes the Data of 700M Users
without discourse
I've tried talking to you before. It's pointless.
lol. some are harder than others, but it doesn't even show up sometimes, so they are having issues.
actually it's pretty clever, there's a slide you move till you can read it. It's a con to get more people to pay to skip it though.
That's crazy, those captchas are just incomprehensible gibberish..
WTC7 may have looked like a "text book" controlled demolition at the moment of it's collapse, but the collapse of the towers did not, and the physical evidence for "text book" controlled demolition is weak.
It's based reports of the sound of explosions (not captured on any footage that I've seen, not like the boom boom boom we hear in footage of other controlled demolitions); and also on microscopic bits of metal in the rubble, that anyway one could expect to be there regardless, since the buildings themselves were composed of those same metals.
Also, the chain of custody of the evidence (the dust) in which Steven Jones found his "microspheres" was not maintained or logged. It's a "trust me bro" type of situation.
What is covered in the film has nothing to do with flat earth or lasers (or mazers or plasmoids), and no serious proponent of LENR or DEW is a flat earther, nor am I.
Nor is there some requirement for a DEW to be operated from space.
You are making the same mistake that the blue-pilled do, when they believe what they're told on the news without researching it for themselves.
Suppression of the success of this type of "quantum vacuum" energy creation, or low energy nuclear reaction, is a conspiracy with far-reaching consequences. The cover-up has been very successful, but 9/11 is evidence of it's utilisation.
I don't dispute that people saw planes. Nor does the maker of this film. Almost everyone there that day and looking up saw planes. They are on video, and they were recorded live, not added later. The claim is that in reality they were extremely powerful and advanced optical holographics, developed military use. Some of the reasons for thinking so are covered in the film.
DEW's not viable in 2001
The technology potentially used to destroy the towers was independently demonstrated to be possible, and to work, many times by Canadian John Hutchison, on a much smaller scale than 9/11, from the mid 70's onwards. He was trying to recreate the experiments of Nikola Tesla by studying photographs of Tesla's laboratory and obtaining and/or building machinery that Tesla had. One would imagine Tesla documented his process and discoveries in his papers, but, as you may or may not know, upon his death, Tesla's papers were confiscated by the US gov, specifically by Donald Trump's uncle. Nikola Tesla did publicly describe this destructive force which he had discovered, and how he experimented successfully with it. He gave a dire warning about it's capabilities.
kind of discredits the 9/11 truth movement
The main truth movement is heavily influenced by, and potentially under the control of "controlled opposition" agents. Alleged evidence of explosives/thermate is weak, yet it is touted as iron clad by Steven Jones and others.
The evidence for the use of an exotic energy technology is much stronger, and in abundance, and yet it is ridiculed and censored by them, without rational response.
Steven Jones has a history of suppressing research into "zero point" energy (LENR - low energy nuclear reaction - the energy source used for the destruction of the WTC) in his career as a USGov, DOE-funded scientist at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. The dude glows.
Is it unthinkable that the truth movement that has grown up around 9/11 has been secretly hijacked (or even established in part) by assets or intelligence operatives with the intention of controlling opposition? Those who have come to be in charge of the biggest 9/11 truth organizations control what is to be considered, and what and who are to be censored, under the banner of those organizations.
For example Architects&Engineers have "vetting guidelines" given to trusted members for screening new volunteers. They instruct that a prospective volunteer be exhaustively google searched, and alert words were listed in a leaked draft. If the words were discovered in connection with a volunteer on a forum or elsewhere online, the volunteer should be rejected:
"no planes", "dew", "nukes", "harp", "ufo", "judy wood", "jews", "holocaust", "zionism".
source: page 141-142 of this pdf
Fuck, it was a joke. Deleting/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/od1cas/i_was_going_to_do_my_usual_free_award_on_dfvs/
r/wallstreetbets has gone private
UPDATE OIU just made a post about it:
Looks like Trump is the first in a long time to take a hit to net-worth
bat shit insane theories about holograms and space beams
Holographic projection has likely been developed to a much greater level than is publicly available. There is decades of well funded research and development behind it, and also an effort to erase mention of that from the internet. It has been developed for the military, so has has gone dark. Older books are still available though, from before it went dark, which show how much effort was being put into it. We only know about the less powerful, commercially available, novelty type we have seen on TV. With military application, their aim was to develop optical holography that would fool enemies into believing they saw planes that didn't exist. That was their literal stated aim, from many years before 9/11.
"Space beams", or more accurately, directed energy weapons, exist in various forms, and are used on terra firma. The issue is how powerful they are and the extent of their capabilities. Again, it is not clear that the true extent is public knowledge, since again this tech is supposedly developed for military application and is secret.
Mentioned in the documentary is how "beaming from space" is not a necessary element in the DEW theory of 9/11. That idea has been attached by people seeking to undermine the evidence, for whatever reasons. The technology could have been in New York that day, or near by.
DE functions through the influence on each other of intersecting fields, "field effects" - strong fields of static electricity, radio waves, micro waves etc intersecting, with the objects within the crossover of those fields being effected in various ways (anti-gravitic, molecular dissociation). The importance of the hurricane and weather in New York prior to the morning of 9/11 is that this perhaps could have set up the atmosphere over New York that day to be conducive to a DEW. Similar "field effects" have been observed during hurricanes,derechos, tornados; such as wood lodging in concrete, or soft straw lodging in the solid wood of trees, or extremely heavy objects literally floating. Molecular dissociation and other effects happen during these weather events, and no one really knows why... supposedly.
Correction to above - the call is made by CeeCee Lyles, not Betsy Ong.
[...] Let us be clear on something here. You might support Wikipedia’s approach to Covid-19; but you cannot maintain that it is neutral. A neutral approach would acknowledge and fairly represent alternative views on the origin of the virus, the efficacy of masks, the effectiveness and defensibility of lockdowns, and the effectiveness and safety of the Covid-19 vaccines. You might maintain that the articles are better without such an approach; but then what you are saying is that you prefer the articles’ Establishment bias to a neutral approach that would let the reader decide.
[...] This is hardly news, but it bears repeating. Wikipedia openly repudiates neutrality, and therefore it is shamelessly hypocritical in how it continues to pay lip service to its “neutral point of view” policy. Wikipedia’s editors embrace their biases sometimes so fervently that their articles emerge more as propaganda than as reference material.
Conclusion:
[...] Wikipedia does not just mirror the biases found in the mainstream news media, because some of it is conservative or contrarian. A lot of mainstream news stories are broken only in Fox News, the Daily Mail, and the New York Post—all of which are banned from use as sources by Wikipedia. Beyond that, many mainstream sources of conservative, libertarian, or contrarian opinion are banned from Wikipedia as well, including Quillette, The Federalist, and the Daily Caller. Those might be contrarian or conservative, but they are hardly “radical”; they are still mainstream. So, how on earth can such viewpoints ever be given an airing on Wikipedia? Answer: often, they cannot, not if there are no “reliable sources” available to report about them.
In short, and with few exceptions, only globalist, progressive mainstream sources—and sources friendly to globalist progressivism—are permitted.
It is true that Wikipedia permits a few sources, such as Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, Daily Telegraph, and Weekly Standard, which are more often tolerant of conservative viewpoints, but these are (or have become) as often centrist as conservative, and they are generally careful never to leave the current Overton Window of progressive thought. They are the “loyal opposition” of the progressive media hegemony.
Why has Wikipedia systematically purged conservative mainstream media sources? Is it because such sources have become intolerably irresponsible and partisan? That’s what Wikipedians will tell you. As they put it, it is because they do not want what they dismiss as “misinformation,” “conspiracy theories,” etc., to get any hearing. In saying so, they (and similarly biased institutions) are plainly claiming exclusive control over what is thinkable. They want to set the boundaries of the debate, and they want to tell you how to think about it. A good illustration of just how radical Wikipedia’s source-banning policies have become can be seen in their treatment of Newsweek magazine, which is now marked as “no consensus” (i.e., avoid and use with caution), because ownership passed in 2013 to IBT Media, the publisher of the centrist, sometimes conservative-leaning, International Business Times, which is itself deemed “unreliable.”
For these reasons, it is not too far to say that Wikipedia, like many other deeply biased institutions of our brave new digital world, has made itself into a kind of thought police that has de facto shackled conservative viewpoints with which they disagree. Democracy cannot thrive under such conditions: I maintain that Wikipedia has become an opponent of vigorous democracy. Democracy requires that voters be given the full range of views on controversial issues, so that they can make up their minds for themselves. If society’s main information sources march in ideological lockstep, they make a mockery of democracy. Then the wealthy and powerful need only gain control of the few approved organs of acceptable thought; then they will be able to manipulate and ultimately control all important political dialogue.
[...] sources that provide mainstream coverage of conservative points of view, including Fox News, The New York Post, and the (U.K.) Daily Mail—as well as pretty much all of newer conservative news media sources, which are the only outlets doing any reporting on many important stories—have all been added to a list of sources “deprecated” for their coverage of political news. This is not a joke and not an exaggeration. Republican-favoring sources, even quite mainstream ones, simply may not be used on Wikipedia, not even to explain a Republican viewpoint.
[...] Again, there is much more to the story, but the point is that the Biden scandals deeply divide the American people. An ideologically neutral resource would explain both sides fully and fairly, leaving the reader to make up his own mind. Is that what Wikipedia does? No. Wikipedia is clearly aligned with one side. You might maintain that it is the only legitimate side; but then, that is what many ideologues say of their own side. What you cannot seriously maintain is that Wikipedia’s treatment of the Biden scandals is neutral. It is grossly biased.
[...] Let us be clear on something here. You might support Wikipedia’s approach to Covid-19; but you cannot maintain that it is neutral. A neutral approach would acknowledge and fairly represent alternative views on the origin of the virus, the efficacy of masks, the effectiveness and defensibility of lockdowns, and the effectiveness and safety of the Covid-19 vaccines. You might maintain that the articles are better without such an approach; but then what you are saying is that you prefer the articles’ Establishment bias to a neutral approach that would let the reader decide.
I follow SO's work, but there is a fair amount of geo-engineering that goes on too.
https://climateviewer.com/2017/11/07/ten-technologies-to-own-the-weather-today/
It's possible to trigger short term weather anomalies, like a torrential rain shower where there were no natural rain-clouds, and perhaps such as this lightening anomaly, or maybe it could be some kind of side-effect. And maybe more, such as triggering earthquakes. I'm just speculating, but the two-tone clouds are intriguing.
(warning this turned into a bit of a rant, feel free to ignore)
This is certainly not as well made a documentary, or as well laid out as New Pearl Harbor. I should hope most here have already seen that film though. I think people should give this a watch, as it does cover evidence simply ignored by David Ray Griffin (the source for much of what's in NPH).
Also, as authoritative as NPH is, and I hold it in high regard, in the interim after watching it a few times a few years ago I've come across some minor, but crucial, errors in analysis. Some examples for anyone interested:
An incomplete analysis of the 5 cctv frames showing what hit the pentagon.
A silver/blueish/purplish blob can be seen ahead of the white blob, that is identified in the NPH, as an object that has entered into frame and is heading for the Pentagon. The colouring of the silver/blue/purple blob not mentioned in the film corresponds to the colour of the plane that was supposed to have hit the pentagon. One logical hypothesis is that the first blob looks like the plane and the white blob is a smoke trail of some kind coming off what looks like the plane. But in the film, if I remember correctly, he only analyses the shape of the white blob, ignoring the plane coloured blob. And then starts to speculate about the frames being edited.
The infamous Ong Phone call:
I can't remember how exactly this is covered in the film, but the Betsy Ong phone call is another significant piece of evidence with multiple interpretations that is usually only presented as having one interpretation. It seems there is "consensus" that she whispers "it's a frame" at the end of the call. But many who hear that whisper believe the words could actually be "you did great", and may be spoken by another (female?) voice, either also on the line or next to Betsy.
Almost as if someone is telling her she pulled off the phone call well, perhaps believing she had already hung up. Various interpretations can be made from this, and one line of thought is that it is not Betsy at all, but an impostor using voice cloning software (it exists), and "you did great" implies "you successfully fooled her husband into believing he was talking with Betsy."
There are more examples than just these, but I just wanted to demonstrate that NPH is not all-encompassing.
9/11 alchemy covers different ground and in a different style, with different source material. I will admit though, the film maker is in his own film too much. But it's an independent, no-budget affair, made by a first time long-documentary film maker, and clearly made in his spare time. Mazzucco, who made NPH, has made many impressive documentaries on different topics, and works at it full time in retirement, after a full career as a fashion photographer.
An independent documentary made in 2017 that explores important areas of inquiry into 9/11 which get overlooked:
-
the real possibility that advanced holographic image projection technology was utilized that day, "on the ground", in the sky above New York. This technology has been in the works for military application for 2 decades - the publicly available documentation and current commercial use of this tech is explored with 9/11 in mind
-
the strong evidence for the use of an exotic, directed-energy, black technology to "dustify" the World Trade Centre - evidence which is documented in the book "Where Did The Towers Go?", available for download in our wiki
-
the strange behaviour of Hurricane Erin on 9/11, and how the weather conditions over New York in the 24 hours prior to the morning of 9/11 could have contributed to what happened that day - a link to weather engineering?
-
debunking the misleading claims of some prominent "mainstream" & "alternative" 9/11 "truthers" (Simon "Shack", Steven Jones, Ace Baker) - are they just wrong, or are they intentionally producing dis-info?
The film purports to provide the most complete picture of the entirety of the events that unfolded that day, including matching the events at all the sites that day to the minute by minute magnetometer readings of the Earth’s Magnetic Field.
You have to follow Tony Heller's videos. He's on Rumble, Bitchute and has a blog. If he still has a youtube, organize his videos by most views to see the ones that made the most waves. One big discovery he made was that the contemporary temperature record was being adjusted by these radicals to match the rise in CO2 emission in recent decades... because the temps didn't match their assumptions how it should be. They make up all kinds of excuse for doing this, but basically it boils down to them saying people didn't know how to measure the temperature before we came along, so we "correct the record". They literally say we know better the temperature 100 years ago, despite not being alive then, than the scientist who measured it, and lived though it back then.
I hate to say it, but r/climateskeptics on reddit is still a good source to follow too.
They've been adjusting the temperature record a lot more recently, reducing historical temps and boosting contemporary ones. To a ridiculous "degree" (haha), as observed by Tony Heller. They've been doing that for a decade or so already, but in generally in small increments. However over the past year the amount of "adjustments" (fraud) has gone way up. Now when they compare current temps to the records, it's meaningless since they have changed the past temperatures to suit their agenda.
That does seem to be a lot of tweets on the topic. Maybe they put up a lot of new ones during pandemic times and people are beginning to notice so the propaganda machine has been rolled out.
You just make shit up and then say that i said it. Pretty sick of your bullshit TBH.