I might make some improvements/corrections to it over the course of a day or so.
Anyway, here goes (be sure to check out the Wiki link because it contains a lot of links that might be of interest:
This is James Corbett of the Corbett Report. It's the 18th of September 2009 in the U.S, where I'm joined by Josh and Mark, the former hosts of Piercing The Darkness, an in-depth investigation of the cyberterror false-flag paradigm enabled by enterprise architecture software. Josh and Mark, thank you for joining me today.LordSyndicate:
Well, it's a pleasure to be here. Thank you for having us.Anti_Illuminati
: Well, thank you, James.JC:
Well, it's good to talk to you again, Mark, and it's good to talk to you for the first time, Josh. So, for the listeners who are maybe tuning in for the first time, please, can you differentiate your voices, maybe introduce yourselves, and tell us which aspects of the total information awareness control grid do you specialise in?LS:
[laughs] Alrighty, I'll let you go ahead first, Mark.
AI: Yeah, my name is Mark, also known as Anti_Illuminati, one of the moderators of the Prison Planet forum. And little over a year ago, I begun taking the testimony of Indira Singh that she did publicly from 2004 and branching out from her research into all of the things that she revealed - all of the connections that she made, and realising, really, how massively intricate of a spider-web of treason and criminality that was involved with the Ptech software. And predominantly, all of my information is sourced and is based on PDF documents from military, government and corporate websites. That's basically the gist of it - I don't have a bona-fide educational background in [the] systems/hardware/software technology aspect of it like Josh does. Basically, I'm the one who has delved into - really digging deep into the information, going through a lot of boring things that may not seem like they have any significance on the surface. But when you really get into it, and you start to see all these correlations - all these relevancies to other documents and other organizations and people - a lot of it tying directly which ends up tying to the people who are talked about by other individuals investigating 9/11 from their angle - from completely different angles, such as [[Sibel Edmonds]] and things like that. And basically, I've taken all the documentation and just let people know where they can - you know, I've put links to things where people can look at this.
I've just kind of like taught myself in terms of learning what they are doing - just from continuously reading everything that they are talking about - and understanding the underpinnings of the global police state that they are setting up - and the reason behind that, and trying to find motives for them to have actually carried out 9/11. And the more that you find out about all of this, the more that you know you are on the right track - when you have multiple sources of information that just keep confirming everything that you're looking into. So, Josh, you want to take it from there? Go ahead.LS:
Absolutely. Thanks, Mark. And my name is Josh - I'm also known as LordSyndicate on the Prison Planet forums. Basically, I have come across Anti_Illuminati - Mark - vis a vis the forum itself - having actually made a comment against one of his postings against swine flu that caused attention. Basically, the reason I made that comment - and the comment itself was based upon technical experience I have with IT and enterprise architecture - having dealt with such things for over a decade working for large corporations, primarily large corporations, some government, but primarily large corporations. Most people would call them military-industrial complex - Sun, IBM, Motorola - just to name a few, but, right. A lot of the data and a lot of the material that Mark has presented me basically are things that I know people who have worked with - I have dealt with - I have experience with people who are within four/five degrees of seperation from me. So, I kinda leave it at that. And I have various sources in a lot of various places within different companies - government, etc, and I kinda leave it at that.
[interruption by James Corbett.. some slight confusion]JC:
Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt there. I just wanted to say that I think Mark made a good comment there where he called the Ptech software an intricate, massive spider web - and it's incredibly complicated to untangle that spider web. And I think you guys have both been doing an excellent job on the Prisonplanet forums - so I would once again encourage my listeners to go to the Prisonplanet forum - and especially in the Phd investigate reports section, where you've just detailed such a massive [amount of] information - and as Mark mentioned, coming from PDFs from the companies and corporations that are part of this.
So, you guys have done so much work to break all of this down, that it's difficult to know even where to even begin. And I certainly have some questions for you guys. But first, I'd like to open it up and let you sort of bring up whatever subject you think is most important at this particular juncture.LS:
I actually have a little introduction - a little statement I'd like to make. It's not only just companies, governments and corporations, but even universities and private, long-profit research organizations that have been a part of this as well. Especially in the case of OMG (Object Management Group) and George Mason University. But we'll get into that in a little bit, basically.JC:
Well, absolutely. That is an important point, I think - that foundations and non-governmental organizations (NGO) tend to get a free ride and a pass when people talk about corporate control and corporate power. Perhaps we do need a different terminology to talk about that.LS:
Right. Well, that's kinda the thing, actually - that people should understand that there shouldn't be a different terminology, because - to quote Eisenhower here, the military-industrial complex is no longer just governments, it's all of these institutions. It's these corporations, these schools, and these profit and non-profit institutions that actually are now in control. You know, making up what is this military-industrial complex that is the ruling hierarchy that leads to the oligarchy.
But, the thing about it is, that is the point - that whole philosophy and that whole ruling Bilderberg oligarchy - everything filters down and you can really - if you been a part of enterprise architecture or an architect for these type of government systems, and I guess you have a knack for it - it's clear as day, basically.
You know, universities take part where one professor or a dean or department head knows what the purpose of said experiment, and they hand them: "OK, we want you to build this program that does this". And all these people on the bottom that are students essentially - they're doing it to get a good grade. And the little worker bees at work - the same thing - they're doing this to get a dollar. So the real differentiation there is the cookie that's given to the end-user, sadly - the cookie being either a dollar or a good grade or whatever form of payment you want to take [it]. So that's basically what I'm trying to say - they use all of these tools, and all of these tools should not be separated, because they have infected all of these parts - of our society, culture, and government.JC:
Mark, you have anything to add?
AI: Yeah, and actually tying into that - I think what needs to be mentioned is - Object Management Group is really one of the sinister organizations behind that. Because - see, what they've been able to do with the type of programming methodology that Ptech is based on, which is called [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CORBA CORBA] - it's a way to take the idea of compartmentalizing your subordinates to an extreme, OK? And that's how they keep - it's kind of like, to draw a parallel on something real quick - it's kind of like what Alex Jones talks about when he's referencing the NSA - one of the reasons they spy on anyone is so that they can keep an eye on anyone that may not be corrupt within the government - that may be actually trying to do a good job, and actually catch real terrorists - which would be the false-flag terrorists. And so they can catch them pre-emptively and shut down investigations, like - shut down drug investigations, shut down torture, shut down different things.
Case in point directly in relevance to 9/11, that's precisely the best example of this - this guy was for real - the top counter-terror officer for the FBI, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_P._O%27Neill John O'Neill]. I mean, he had like the most intel, the most information about Al-Qaeda and bin Laden, and what he was finding out was that Al-Qaeda was run by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_P._O%27Neill John O'Neill] took a team to Yemen to investigate the USS Cole bombing, and he found ties to Israeli MOSSAD. That type of stuff - and what happened? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_Hauer Jerome Hauer] of Kroll Associates gave John O'Neill a new job - they basically fired him. He had a briefcase - John O'Neill had a briefcase - they ceased that. They terminated his job, they ceased his documents, because it would have implicated - it was stuff just like [[Sibel Edmonds]] in its own way, and it would have exposed hardcore criminality that would have - it would have really brought a lot of the cards down in the house of cards, OK? So they ceased that and lo and behold - they gave John O'Neill a new job at the World Trade Center, starting on 9/11. And he's dead. And it's like - what a coincidence.
That being said, back to what I was saying - the New World Order, see, they don't play games. That's being said by a lot of people, but they really don't. They have every single thing covered, even down to the most minute details - and where leads to is the software architecture. They make sure that all their little lemmings, all their little dumbed-down little people in the government, like at the CIA and even at the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) - they are only - [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CORBA CORBA] and the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_%28programming_language_from_Cobra_Language_LLC%29 COBRA] programming language which Josh will explain - that's what gives them the ability to carry out false-flags and to be able to hide information from people that they don't want them to see [it].LS:
Well, yeah. It's part of the whole [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBAC RBAC] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBAC Role-Based Access Control]) ideal which is part of general IT security principles. And, you know, just to comment on what you said, Mark - yes, they conveniently give him a job at the World Trade Center, and just conveniently happen to have - they're seen attending a meeting on the 106th floor that day, which by the look of gosh, he missed, and he was late to. Yeah, yeah - too many coincidences there for that to all be coincidence. [laughs] But basically, here is the point - let's explain a couple of things. For those familiar with IT or even not familiar, here's a little primer - IT security, I should say. Specifically fine-level control, NSA-level security - what we're talking about here specifically, excuse me, goes by vary exacting names on the different distributions that are used, but all of them have been certified as "NSA-trusted operating systems". I'm using this in IT as an example, because it basically - although it is heavily used in IT, it translates throughout and even translates into people and into policy. And the whole core of this - is the idea of 'group policy'. Now, if you're a Windows administrator, this should stick in your head really big. But it's basically a set of rules and definitions as to what you can and can't do on a system. You, as a user, administrator, super administrator, machine administrator, all of these things are of course determined by permissions held in the database. The little database has a little field that tells whatever application: "Hey, you can do X, you can't do Y".
But, the point being is that, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBAC RBAC] is role-based authentication and it's the idea that each one of these groups has a role in the institution. So, you have entire operating systems built - entire systems - entire organizations built upon the idea that person Y needs to only know enough to function for their job. Their permissions in a computer - their permissions throughout all electronic systems and information systems and access systems - should equate only to what they need to do their job. And this is kind of a simple idea. In practice, it's a lot harder, in a lot of ways, because it involves thousands of lines of code that are built into systems that have the ability to actually secure and allow these things to occur. But the point is that - you know - they're all based on a set of standards, because if you don't have a set of standards, then the end-user or the person or the thing setting the permissions isn't going to have a way to translate them across the board. And this is where they get into a term called 'interoperability'. Everything has to be able to talk both ways - so that these systems can pass data freely. So that, if Joe Blow jumps on this terminal, and logs in as Joe Blow, then he's only going to see what Joe Blow needs to see. If Joe Blow is a nobody, he will get told to go away if it's a secure system of any kind. But say it's a library computer - Joe Blow can log into a library computer and he'll get this [inaudible] and surf the web and [all] that. You can go to a library computer and if you log in with a password that you can actually put into a machine, you know - the Windows login and password - it will authenticate these systems -it will allow you to access these systems - you know, basically core, top-secret systems. Granted, whenever you log out, that terminal will automatically reboot and flash itself - which is, basically, it will clear its memory and wipe itself as per a
- that actually wipes that machine, so that. You know, they're all Netboot, which means they boot off a network - it has no operating system until it's turned on and it pulls it off over a network cable, like off the Internet basically except it's a LAN.
So Netboot's - everything's wiped and goes to the next user - but while it was under user Y's control - let's say user Y was a local university professor who has top-secret clearance - because not just anybody can walk into a library and do this - there is compartmentalization. Let's make this clear - this is the point of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBAC RBAC] and the whole point that every single person and every single object has a place in the database - locations are reduced down to a code - a string of numbers, in letters perhaps even - a binary number in the end. And the point is that each one of these becomes a unique identifier for set object, so that set object is only able to allocate its [inaudible]. And this is the whole point behind role-based authentication - and the point behind this - it's a principle called 'fine-grained control'. So if you look at it and see this term, this is what it means - it means the ability to allocate an object specifically only to what it needs to be allocated to. And when it's no longer needed to be allocated to other objects, for that allocation to be able to be removed or even that object to be removed, and have everything else function.
Well, usually, but that's its own piece. Right, the point is - so you have this as a security system and, you know, and basically it prevents General W who is in charge of, say, parashoot troopers, from going and digging into submarining plans for an admiral or something. Basically, it's the general premise behind it - and the premise and theory behind such things have their place and their uses. It's only in their implementation, really, I would say, that things really go wrong and their intention. Yeah, [chuckles], implementation is a long story. OK. [chuckles]JC:
Mark, would you like to expand on that point?
Alright, go ahead guys.
AI: OK. In reference to the interoperability - what this - another thing you have to look at is - the idea behind this in one respect is - giving your pawns - the New World Order is giving the people that work for them the illusion of administrative control - so that they'll think that they are in charge or whatever. But really, the people above them will always be in charge - they'll be able to override even the 'administrator' and they won't know that. What's an application of this? What am I talking about? What we're talking about here - this is what they're doing with the idea of the smart grid. This is how they're transforming all of the electric power plants - distribution, power distribution centers - across the United States, and they're going to do this globally.
When you have anything that is - and this whole agenda what I'm talking about - it applies to a lot of different things - it applies to cybersecurity too. So I might sound like I'm jumping between two different topics, but it's easier to show the relevancy by doing that. Because this is their whole agenda, I mean - they're taking everything over...LS:
[interrupting] it's all interconnected, it's all interconnected. Definitely Mark. Go ahead.
AI: OK, here is another way of saying this. The guy who was the former head of Cybersecurity, Rod Beckstrom. In his own words - and he wrote a book on this too - touting the advantages of decentralization - on how a starfish represents decentralization where if you cut off one of the legs, it regenerates - it has true resiliency. And the antithesis is the spider - this is his book 'The Starfish and the Spider'. Now this is key - let me explain this - now, Beckstrom himself was not really like an IT guy per se - [Josh tries to interrupt] Josh can go into that in a second, but - here's what I'm saying. The reason why Beckstrom resigned is because he saw - and if you look at this, if you look into these people, you'll see like - why does this name keep coming up? Ask yourself this question when you read anything - look for the same thing to come up all the time, like particularly in this case the CSIS (Center for Strategic and International Studies).
You've noticed that the Obama administration - if you read just a bunch of articles about what's going on - you're going to see the Center for Strategic and International Studies come up all the time, because that's a leg of the [[Council on Foreign Relations]]/Bilderberg, and they're totally embedded in the government. I mean, they're openly in the government now, OK? So you have the CSIS that is - they're the ones that originally hired Rod Beckstrom, and Beckstrom resigned because he was freaking out - and he was like saying: "What the hell? You guys are trying to centralize everything. This is a total takeover - you're removing real security here and you're setting this up for a disaster." OK, that's what - when you read all the stuff about that - that's why he resigned. Because he was like: "These guys are like - they came out of the woodwork and it's like: 'We're in full takeover mode. If you don't like what we're doing, you're fired, get out of here'". That's what's happening - there's all these top people - there's a nuclear weapons naval officer that resigned, I mean - there's all these different people - some National Reconnaissance Office chief - there's all these different people that are leaving in key government positions, because they don't want to be anywhere near the fallout when all of this stuff comes down.LS:
Oh no. Exactly. Yeah, precisely, as I was saying, one of my favorites was that Joint Chiefs Admiral who resigned over Iran, that's I think one of my faves today. There's some interesting character. He worked for a company and basically ran the whole Blackhat convention after his partner, whose name escapes me - I believe this person was David - but basically, the reason why he is [inaudible] because of all the trouble he got himself into. These guys were real old-school hackers. Not that they are what the movies make them out to be - these are people who basically make things work. If they can't make it work, they'll figure out a way. And if they can't figure out a way, then usually it's because the product they were given was garbage. That's its own story - and even then - nah, that's its own story.
Basically, his partner left and was forced to no longer work for the company and do consulting for one of the largest security companies in the world, especially in the U.S., is because he continually revealed all of these exploits and all of these backdoors and all of these systems that companies just didn't want to be public. And it's interesting, in fact, because - you know - companies like Cisco and specifically Apple - and this is one of the biggest ones - this is a great one - this is really what put a lot of [inaudible] Beckstrom as CEO and later the chairperson because they just figured that he would just go along and be a lackey after they saw what a tough time Apple gave his partner.
Which is basically - they discovered that all of Apple's WiFi cards - running the Atheros chipset - and all of their laptops - which still to this day, I believe, may be an issue. Well, the latest release of the OS, I have not checked, so I can not verify, but it affected all versions of the last release - and so, it [inaudible] basically [laughing]. And the problem is - the WiFi chipset itself - all you really need is a box the size of a remote control for your cardoor, and all it has to do is tell the chipset: "Pick me up!". And it grabs this piece of code and installs it. And it becomes a bug - a trojan - that infects your entire computer and allows the attacker to do whatever they want - and even e-mails the attacker, sends the attacker SMSes or that sort of thing - so that they know how to access your computer remotely - even e-mails some of it if you want it that way. And they revealed that this was possible on all Apple chipsets - Apple placed a legal gag order on him and the company - and basically, [chuckling] tried to shut him down, and waged a propaganda campaign against David's [I believe his name is] personal character rather than even addressing the exploit. They did this for a course of three months. And at the end of it [chuckling], finally claimed they fixed the problem. And as I have said, the problem has existed, and it even exists in the IPhones. So [chuckling] if you have WiFi in your IPhone, and you're in a coffeeshop and somebody has one of these things, everything on your IPhone belongs to them as well. But [chuckling], excuse me - I'm getting over a little bit of a cold, but - the IPhones are their own piece of work.
But, point being, that basically they discovered this - and Apple waged a campaign against him, had him gagged for literally twelve months - that he could not speak about it. When he was finally able to talk about it, he explained what the exploit was - and Apple claimed they fixed it, yet it was still exploitable. And Beckstrom and he both agreed that his partner should resign and he should take the company because of the amount of garbage that Apple was throwing at them. And at this point, he took that place, and started basically - ran last year's Defcon congress - 2008 and 2007. There we go, little iffy on the date. I know Beckstrom ran 2008 - I want to say it happened in 2007, but iffy on the date there. As I highlight, sadly, I like to say - I tend to forget things like dates, and I've forgotten more things than some people have ever learned, and I hate to say that, but yeah [chuckling]. I had people telling me that, 'it seems like', and I'm like: "Yes, sadly". And so, Beckstrom took over the company - and roughly, yeah, basically it was 2007. A year later, [chuckling] he was elected head of Cybersecurity because he was running the Blackhat conferences and the Blackhat security group, basically. Well, Beckstrom himself was more of a PR guy and he was more the ethics group - he wasn't that much of a hacker but he was definitely an ethical guy and that was the thing. And so, you know, that's why his partner really liked him and basically, that's why they worked together and why it worked out so well - because they were both really ethical guys, and one of them was really talented in hacking and one of them was really talentein PR and publicity
And so, Beckstrom took over the company - and roughly, yeah, basically it was 2007. A year later, [chuckling] he was elected head of Cybersecurity because he was running the Blackhat conferences and the Blackhat security group, basically. Well, Beckstrom himself was more of a PR guy and he was more the ethics group - he wasn't that much of a hacker but he was definitely an ethical guy and that was the thing. And so, you know, that's why his partner really liked him and basically, that's why they worked together and why it worked out so well - because they were both really ethical guys, and one of them was really talented in hacking and one of them was really talented with PR, publicity and, you know, that sort of thing - and that PR person was Beckstrom. And hence, the government saw this and thought: "Well, let's make him Cybersecurity head. He's great with, you know,computer security PR; we've never seen a guy who can make so many people in a room take this cyber security stuff seriously. Oh my god! He's got all these people taking this stuff like - really into it!"
AI: Because his position was legitimate. His enthusiasm came from a legitimate drive - like, you know, like the way you would implement cybersecurity. He didn't have the motive for setting it up for false-flags and so forth.LS:
AI: And I've gotta mention something. This has to get on the air. I just want to make sure this doesn't get forgotten here. There is a very huge piece of news that I'm gonna reveal right now, and this is - all I can say is this - I hope that anybody who relays this show back to Jay Rockefeller - I hope he enjoys it, OK? Because I've got a little message for Mr. Jay Rockefeller, alright?
Now, I'm gonna read you a quote about something. Just check this out. This is from an article that is pertaining to the creator of the backdoor PROMIS software. The ability for you to log into it and retrieve any information at will. This was a quote from an article pertaining to him - it was very obscure, I had only found this after searching for like over a year - after over a year of already looking into PROMIS, only then did I end up finding this. So here it goes:
"The most startling revelation in Riconosciuto's discussion is that the PROMIS software wasn't "bugged" by any ordinary means (say, by providing a secret telephone line access). Instead, it utilized a radical new technology Riconosciuto developed that actually enabled the "bugged" computer to broadcast without wires or phone connections - signals which could be picked up at a remote site, say from an Elint satellite..."
which is electronics intelligence, a satellite. I'm going to pause for a second - satellites are like at least 180.000 feet up in the air, OK?
"The software modification forces the computer to produce non-sinusoidal waveforms called Walsh functions, waveforms different from radio waves or other kinds of transmission media. "All the files were read out, all the files were broadcast constantly," Riconosciuto said. He added that the technique has vast commercial applications, and will "allow wireless computer networking, with very small amounts of power, over very large distances"."
Now... that information that I just read to you was from an article where it talks about - he did a demonstration [Michael Riconosciuto], who is still in prison, he's still alive, on trumped up...LS:
Just to say this and you can go. It's all based on ELF Tesla technology - micro-outage long distance transmissions over extreme low frequency. Continue.
AI: OK. Michael Riconosciuto was on a German television show, OK? There were several - I think it was 4 different scientists that confirmed his findings. So there's an actual video of this somewhere - back at the time when this took place, it would have been on a VHS analog if it was recorded - so if someone has a digital copy of it remains to be seen. I'm trying to find out if I can get a copy of the video from the creator of the actual PROMIS software himself, Mr. Bill Hamilton of the NSA, Software Engineer. Now, incidentally, I have someone that acts as liasion between myself and Mr. Hamilton. I forwarded him this information - the creator of the PROMIS software - I forwarded him what I just read to you - and he confirmed it to me. Bill Hamilton of the NSA confirmed to me that what I read to you is a fact, OK? So you know what that means? You know what that means? That means that every bank - you know, you look at the stuff that happened with BCCI - there's another quote I'll read to you later about systematics - that they went around and they sold themselves to all these different banks and said that: "Just hand over your control over everything to us - let us install our software - it will work wonders, we'll take care of everything". And they did this stuff in the '80s - this is how they transfer all the funds, and where all your - you know, like I said before, and it's been talked about by many different people - where all the shadow banks of covert banks and so forth - this is how all of this was done, and all of these different systems have this on it today - and what this means is this. Let's just highlight all the nuclear facilities, everything you can imagine that has a computer - the bioweapons labs, the Joint Strike Fighter location - where they work on that with MITRE Corporation that was on TV - where they claimed that Russia hacked into it and downloaded four Terabytes of data. Or that medical facility that they claimed that somebody held for ransom for ten million dollars.LS:
I was just gonna say: in order for people to understand that, because that's kind of a jump ahead, is - you need to understand the premise of how everything's built - everything is built with interoperability backdoors. The entire system is designed so that people can get into them. Let me just - basically, the point is that PROMIS itself was built as a way into everything from the backend - so that people could untraceably get into things, as Alexander Levice liked to call. Basically, Ptech was built - which is in the later stages of PROMIS - so that we would know their weaknesses, we would know what they were, we would know how to exploit them, and where they were... [chuckling] and you know, this is key. Not only are these things here, but we know how, where, and what every single piece of this does. And it all ties back to one central system - kind of like a marionette - kind of like - everything is controlled by this string. This string works the arm, this string works the leg, this string caps the medical database, this string caps the banking database, this string caps the FAA- right.
All of these strings - one would begin to ask themselves: "Don't they need some massive supercomputer intelligence for this?" Well, I invite you all - go now to [http://www.top500.org top500.org] and look at the most powerful supercomputers there. These are grid computers - computers made up of thousands and thousands of nodes. Hundreds of thousands, some of them. Spread across cities - they have the intelligence of cities. In fact, the current ones now run at about 1 trillion times the capacity needed by this computer put out many years ago, the [http://www.top500.org/system/details/9878 NEC Earth Simulator]. I cite this one, because it was interesting - in the fact that it was able and capable of running at minimum in its inception three concurrent simulations of everything - weather, cultural, biological patterns of evolution of the entire planet, based upon all of the history, courses of probability completely from X number of days to how many number of years in the future they wanted to run it. I think they had accurately at the point of debuting it - say they had, like, a 250-year calculation on that initially. That's what they say - what the program run - the prototype, the beta test - said that they could do. Initially, they had 250 years ahead on everything prior - calculated perfectly and co-simulated, and run three copies.
AI: Let me get back to what I was saying, Josh.LS:
No, let me finish. The point is that - this system of computers can run three copies of the entire Earth. The computers they have now are between one to three hundred thousands more powerful, and they're all owned by the NSA, DOD and the Department of Energy. And I'll leave it at that, and you can continue.
AI: Yeah, the point I was trying to make is that... OK, there's multiple facets to it, but let me just get one important thing out. What I was trying to say is that: the way that they can use it, it's not a cyberissue, it's not a cyberhack or attack or whatever. They can have all these people worried about cybersecurity, and like - 'Oh, somebody getting - which implies going over your standard wireless 802.11X or whatever or your Ethernet cable'. No, no, no.. the National Reconnaissance Office could have a satellite access a machine and they can download or delete or add any data to that machine from space, OK? You understand what the implications of that are? Now, that's not the only thing here. This is not like a one-trick pony here or whatever. I'm highlighting this, because nobody's talking about it - nobody knows what I just told you - predominantly, nobody knows what I just said.
The point of that is too - it makes the whole thing about cybersecurity a fraud - because, you know, what's at the extreme end of their technology in terms of how they can access a computer remotely. And if you think - there's other corroborating stuff that shows that this is not a joke. I found a document from Wright-Patterson Air Force Base that shows Air Force planes scanning cities with some type of scanner to access their computers. There's a new bill that's being introduced into either the House or the Senate - it pertains to farmers. You know what it does? You know how like they're going to have home inspections for carbon taxes? Well guess what this bill does? This forces you that you have to have a government enterprise architecture on your computer to catalog your fruits, vegetables and livestock - and if you don't have it, you're going to get fined until you get out of business and you'll go to prison. You're going to be forced to run Ptech on your machines - Homeland Security has a thing they're coming out with called 'Software Assurance'. You know what 'Software Assurance' is? It's full-spectrum dominance over all software. They're going to make all open-source software illegal - anything that you'll want to run. Like in Finland, there was an article not long ago, that Linux was illegal, or they tried to make it illegal in Finland. They're going to take over everything. You're gonna run their systems, you're gonna allow the government to access your machine at will - if you don't do it, you're going to prison. You understand that? That's what these guys are doing, OK - that's how insane these people are. You're not supposed to have the freedom to be posting stuff on the Internet and to be reading about what they're really doing - they don't want you to be doing that. And you people better wake up about what their intentions are - before you know it, they're going to have people coming into your house, telling you what to do. And I mean, it's - hey what in the hell are we letting it get to this point for. It's... it's just off the charts.
Now, the other thing I want to mention is in 2006 - the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) publicly stated that they wanted to have all hardware manufacturers have a deliberate backdoor into them for the FBI/NSA to spy on the American people. You should type that into Google, you'll find that there was an article on Wired.com - this was done under the CALEA (Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act) law - not sure what that stands for.JC:
[filling in] Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act 1994.
AI: There you go. OK. That's the thing - people need to wake up. The government's pretending they give a damn about cybersecurity - excuse me? And you're saying that all these routers are deliberately backdoored - who do they think they're - if they're backdoored, that means they're not secure - but yet you're claiming you're about security, but everything's backdoored, and - if that's not enough, you can access this stuff from space and you can attack, you can unlock... try this out - here's a scenario for you, right. How about this: let's say that you're in the satellite and they go: "Oh, there's a lovely Level 4 bioweapons lab. Let's unlock all the doors right now with the enterprise architecture that's on here, boom, all the doors are unlocked, all the weaponized ebola gets out, 50.000 people die, let's blame it on some guy who hates - you know, was saying that Obama was not a U.S. citizen - let's tie it in with that. Let's say it was a 9/11 Truther that did it - that somehow unlocked the bioweapons lab and killed everybody. OK, we need the military to intervene.LS:
Yes, that's plausible and possible. That's a good demonstration of what is possible, OK. It's possible for them to do this. Meanwhile, their goal here is - the perfect false-flag, the perfect patsy. Meaning - they want it perfect - so that you don't have any loose ends. You see, that's the problem they have always foreseen with all of these false-flags: tying up loose ends.
AI: And that's where the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_Loop OODA loop] comes into play.LS:
Well, of course, but - the whole system is based on that. The whole system is based on the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_Loop OODA Loop] - which comes from a General, a General named John Boyd, who is part of the Air Force, quite famous, quite well known. He invented - once could say 'discovered' or 'invented' - a system known as the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_Loop OODA Loop]. And go to Wikipedia, search now - they have an amazing description of it - one of perhaps the best I've seen thus far along the line, which is even better - being that it's Wikipedia. I'm not a big fan of Wikipedia, mind you, but for once, they're almost spot on. Few things there are. But um, [chuckling], another good one if you ever want to have fun is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skynet_%28satellites%29 Skynet] - and then subcategory '[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skynet_%28satellites%29 Satellites]'. Yeah - that's one interesting little topic right there. [inaudible] does exist - not to a degree, but that's its own story. Like I say, go read the Wikipedia page if you really want to dig into that and scare yourself tonight. Yeah, it's compartmentalized - run by MI5 via ?? World Skynet Now, Telus at Canada. But the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_Loop OODA Loop] is a process - it stands for Orient... I forget the exact [acronym]...JC:
Observe, orient, decide, act.LS:
Thank you. Excellent. Perfect. [chuckling] And the idea is that you take old [information] - that which is passed, all of your knowledge, and everything you're doing - and you put it into the planning phase of your change. And the idea is that all of your personnel, as they are learning about its past history and all of its possible futures - they take all of its possible futures and they give that to them as well. And - you know - that is called Observe. This is the observance phase - look at everything - past, present, future.
Orient means - to figure out how to take your project or what you're going to do and align it so that it is successful. Now, decide basically means to come up with your decisions based upon causality - particularly, you really want to look at causality here. I want to step back and quote one of my favorite authors here [inaudible], Frank Herbert, [inaudible] which is a ten-thousand year extension of Zen into the future.
So, the idea basically is that, you cannot look at the answers in any situation, you can only look at the questions. The questions will give you the ability to analyse the situation, because they're the only things that remain constant in every situation. Every situation will have a set of questions. These questions can be used to create a decision. And you take these questions at every pass, you analyze them, OK, and you come up with decisions based upon [audio noise] - not the answers to your questions, but the solutions to your goal. Everything that you create, you see, must be in relation to your goal. And your goal is the key - this goal is your change. Everything is focused on the goal. And the other key part here is that every one of these individuals are compartmentalized and even hypnotized by this process to the effect that they feel that they are merely acting to create and plan for the change, you see. They are, in fact, in reality, making the change, but in their minds they only see that they are planning or working to test or implement systems to eventually make the change. Now, this becomes important on go-live date, which we'll discuss in a minute and give you an exactingly perfect parabel here. The point is that - you make these decisions based upon all of the questions that your team has that are your problems. You develop solutions for these problems, and that is when you act - and action is your go-live.
And the best way to describe and sum up this whole process that even - anybody should be able to understand is basically: when you rig a building to bring it down, or a demolition - a team goes in after the architects have been talked to, and they look at the architect drawings, and they have an architect come in, and they go to a demolitions expert, and these guys talk - and they ask questions. And they say: 'Well, if we do it this and this and this way' - they come up with a solution, right? And they sent a team out - and the team rigs the building. And the team basically is making the change while they're rigging the building. Because when the button is pressed, the change is already been made - nobody's going to sit back and head to the building while it's exploding - one should hope not, mind you [chuckles]. And you know, you can't - really. So it has to be exacting and perfect. So they go in, they plan, they address all this, they evaluate what they've done, they may even write a computer simulations. You know - CAD everything, virtual - maybe even run models, and then prototypes, as one could call them. And then finally, everybody is ready to make the change - go-live date. The building is rigged, everything is done, everyone is out of the building, the fire department is down the street, you're sitting there and you're the manager who gets to press the button, and you have the countdown, and you press the button, and the building dissolves, and everybody realizes that they actually just made the change, and the building dissolves in front of them - you know, as many seconds as it takes in free fall thanks to the vacuum of the explosives. And that's basically the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_Loop OODA Loop] put into practice.JC:
Absolutely. Go ahead, Mark.