Cyber false flag terrorism "hackers" and the push for mandatory on line e_signatures

Run_to_da_hills

Edited title as I expect that this is just the beginning of Cyber false flagging in the run up to this announcement.

While the international ACTA treaty and US CISPA legislation are setting the stage to censor clamp down on the world wide web, EU technocrats are working overtime to try to pin down your identity and make sure all your activities are thoroughly monitored and under their control. They will go to an lengths to push their agenda for e_signitures including false flag cyber terrorism and fabricated mainstream press stories.

Its also just a Coincidence that an article on the potential risks of hackers downing aircraft gets published just days prior to Bilderberg when this subject will no doubt be addressed among the "Club".

"Researchers claim chip used in military systems and civilian aircraft has built-in function that could let in hackers

Two Cambridge experts have discovered a "back door" in a computer chip used in military systems and aircraft such as the Boeing 787 that could allow the chip to be taken over via the internet.

The discovery will heighten concerns about the risks of cyber-attacks on sensitive installations, coming on the heels of the discovery this week of the 'Flamer' virus which has been attacking computer systems in Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/may/29/cyber-attack-concerns-boeing-chip

hooradiation

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

another bulls***it scaremongering main stream media report to to try and justify tighter internet security acrss the globe along with the launch of smartcard e_signatures..

Then you'll have no problem debunking the research of the two men from Cambridge.
I eagerly await your thoroughly researched and impeccable rebuttal.

humanji

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

another bulls***it scaremongering main stream media report to to try and justify internet smartcard e_signatures..

Its also just a Coincidence that this article gets published just days prior to Bilderberg when this subject will no doubt be addressed among the worlds eliete.

"Researchers claim chip used in military systems and civilian aircraft has built-in function that could let in hackers

Two Cambridge experts have discovered a "back door" in a computer chip used in military systems and aircraft such as the Boeing 787 that could allow the chip to be taken over via the internet.

The discovery will heighten concerns about the risks of cyber-attacks on sensitive installations, coming on the heels of the discovery this week of the 'Flamer' virus which has been attacking computer systems in Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/may/29/cyber-attack-concerns-boeing-chip

Is this not an argument against the chips which you campaign against?

hooradiation

I'm also curious how a built in backdoor in a specific chip leads to "internet smartcard e_signatures" ,let alone what in the tupping fuck they will be described as being this time, seeing as the two have nothing to do with each other.

SIR PEADO BAILOUT

humanji wrote: »

Is this not an argument against the chips which you campaign against?

And...:rolleyes:

Run_to_da_hills

hooradiation wrote: »

Then you'll have no problem debunking the research of the two men from Cambridge.
I eagerly await your thoroughly researched and impeccable rebuttal.

There would be public outcry if people were told in the morning that they would be require to have e_signitures to access the internet.

No doubt this will be just the beginning of it and we will hear of more potential "cyper attacks" we might even get a "false flag". :eek:

The EU currently itching to have everyone tagged with E_Signitures and no better way to push it on the masses is to come up with stuff like this through the mainstream media.

Classic case of: problem - reaction - solution

hooradiation

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

There would be public outcry if people were told in the morning that they would be require to have e_signitures to access the internet.

No doubt this will be just the beginning of it and we will hear of more potential "cyper attacks" we might even get a "false flag". :eek:

The EU currently itching to have everyone tagged with E_Signitures and no better way to push it on the masses is to come up with stuff like this through the mainstream media.

Classic case of: problem - reaction - solution

Ok, and how does this disprove the claim that there is an exploitable backdoor in these chips?
Which was the actual question, lest you forget.

Run_to_da_hills

hooradiation wrote: »

Ok, and how does this disprove the claim that there is an exploitable backdoor in these chips?
Which was the actual question, lest you forget.

I guess if there was a problem with those components there would be several solutions.

The easier option would be to modify and replace the components to what has been tried and tested for yesrs. The other solution would be to try and prevent this from happening by controlling the masses. The latter would make more sense to the elite

Anyway I don't believe any of this CIA M15 Mossad fictional false flag rubbish no more than I believed the first and follow up CIA M15 Mossad underwear bomber.

humanji

SIR PEADO BAILOUT wrote: »

And...:rolleyes:

Well if the chips can be hacked, and having main stream media reporting this, then that goes against the plan to trick everyone into getting chips implanted in themselves.

hooradiation

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I guess if there was a problem with those components there would be several solutions.

There is no reason to believe otherwise.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The easier option would be to modify and replace the components to what has been tried and tested for yesrs. The other solution would be to try and prevent this from happening by controlling the masses. The latter would make more sense to the elite

These fictional elites have the strangest reasoning of any group I've ever read about.
The solution to a chip manufacturer leaving a backdoor in a chip in production is to "control the masses". You give a trite quip about problem-relation-solution yet the "solution" you put forward doesn't address the problem. Hell it's not even in the same area as the problem?

Are you sure these people are 'elite'? They're sounding more and more like irrational Saturday morning cartoon villains as imagined by a child with very severe attention deficit disorder.


This is even leaving aside that your second solution has no relation to the actual problem of sensitive components being shipped with security holes - it's just a nonsensical soundbite that gets bolted to everything.
"We could just fix the problem OR WE COULD USE IT TO RULE EVERYTHING through a vague and nebulous plan than makes no sense!"

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Anyway I don't believe any of this CIA M15 Mossad fictional false flag rubbish no more than I believed the first and follow up CIA M15 Mossad underwear bomber.

If there is no defect in the chip, then feel free to demonstrate that.
Or, y'know, stop pretending your default mistrust of everything you read that doesn't conform to your world view is a substitute for proof.

Run_to_da_hills

hooradiation wrote: »

If there is no defect in the chip, then feel free to demonstrate that.
Or, y'know, stop pretending your default mistrust of everything you read that doesn't conform to your world view is a substitute for proof.

Its beginning to become more like a cry wolf situation, as with Underwear bombers, they try to come up with a "shocker".

"Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death". Adolf Hitler.

Im going out right now for my back door chips. :pac:

hooradiation

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Its beginning to become more like a cry wolf situation, as with Underwear bombers, they try to come up with a "shocker".

Only to you, but that's because your predisposed towards thinking the most outlandish things anyway.

It's very simple - if this claim about these particular chips is false, feel free to demonstrate that it is.

I'll wait.

Run_to_da_hills

hooradiation wrote: »

Only to you, but that's because your predisposed towards thinking the most outlandish things anyway.

It's very simple - if this claim about these particular chips is false, feel free to demonstrate that it is.

I'll wait.

I don't believe any of it and as I said before I take it all as a made up bull**it press story to grab the attention of the masses.

I see the outcome of Bilderberg ahead of all this.

We will no doubt be hearing more about these do called "hackers" in the coming weeks as the "club" push towards their own outlandish agenda of e_tagging the masses with signatures.

hooradiation

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I don't believe any of it and as I said before I take it all as a made up bull**it press story to grab the attention of the masses.

I don't care what you believe, I care about what can be demonstrated.

If it's made up, then prove it. It's simple, really.

Run_to_da_hills

hooradiation wrote: »

I don't care what you believe, I care about what can be demonstrated.

If it's made up, then prove it. It's simple, really.

Did we need to prove that the underwear bombers were fake?

Tzar Chasm

By that logic would Run to theHills story become automatically accepted as truth if he cant disprove it?

gibraltar

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

By that logic would Run to theHills story become automatically accepted as truth if he cant disprove it?

RTDH has the book of revelations as the bedrock of every theory that he comes up with so they are all as true as the bible...

Run_to_da_hills

gibraltar wrote: »

RTDH has the book of revelations as the bedrock of every theory that he comes up with so they are all as true as the bible...

And the book of Daniel as they tie in together.

hooradiation

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Did we need to prove that the underwear bombers were fake?

It would entirely depend on who you're talking about this time.

Run_to_da_hills

hooradiation wrote: »

It would entirely depend on who you're talking about this time.

All of them, the Detroit incident was a joke and was full of holes just like his underwear. He is more than likely sunning himself under a new identity in South America along with his M15 CIA / Mossad Al Queda terrorist buddy Richard Reid. LOL.

hooradiation

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

All of them, the Detroit incident was a joke and was full of holes just like his underwear. He is more than likely sunning himself under a new identity in South America along with his CIA / Mossad accomplice Richard Reid. LOL.

Ok then, feel free to prove that Richard Reid is, as you put it "sunning himself under a new identity in South America".

Though I can't understand why you keep dragging in more and more unrelated items to your original false claim.

Tzar Chasm

Where do you believe Richard reed to be?

Run_to_da_hills

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

Where do you believe Richard reed to be?

We will never know of his whereabouts but if it is anything like his CIA / Mossad /M15 underwear bomber followers he is certainly not doing life.

I am sure the US contractors that have supplied the TSA with harmful backscatter XRay scanners at airports have him on a good early pension.

hooradiation

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

We will never know of his whereabouts

And thus follows the inevitable question - how do you know he's in South America then?

Run_to_da_hills

hooradiation wrote: »

And thus follows the inevitable question - how do you know he's in South America then?

"He is more than likely in South America" :rolleyes:

hooradiation

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

"He is more than likely in South America" :rolleyes:

The point was you're just speculating and have no basis for making pretty much any of your claims.
Especially ones pertaining to the location of people you've decided aren't what they appear.
Or the ones where security flaws don't exist, because you've decided that is the way things are.

Were I one to see patterns where none exist, I'd speculate your a CIA / Mossad /M15/ Mexican Jew lizard sent here to discredit all conspiracy theories by being consistently terrible at arguing or indeed even sticking to a single point.

Myrddin

hooradiation wrote: »

The point was you're just speculating and have no basis for making pretty much any of your claims.

If conspiracy theories could be proved, they wouldn't be conspiracy theories would they?

Prove this, prove that...your not going to get 'proof'. The essence of a good conspiracy theory is having an informed and educated go at joining the dots. Certain dots might be missing, your never going to prove most of this stuff.

Monty Burnz

EnterNow wrote: »

Prove this, prove that...your not going to get 'proof'. The essence of a good conspiracy theory is having an informed and educated go at joining the dots. Certain dots might be missing, your never going to prove most of this stuff.

I think I can see where we have gone wrong.

hooradiation

EnterNow wrote: »

If conspiracy theories could be proved, they wouldn't be conspiracy theories would they?

Prove this, prove that...your not going to get 'proof'. The essence of a good conspiracy theory is having an informed and educated go at joining the dots. Certain dots might be missing, your never going to prove most of this stuff.

Ahh, this old chestnut.
Some kind of base level of adherence to reality is required, otherwise you can just make any old shit up.

Myrddin

hooradiation wrote: »

Ahh, this old chestnut.
Some kind of base level of adherence to reality is required, otherwise you can just make any old shit up.

Granted, but your still never going to get proof for theories of this type. So why ask for it? All your posts against RTDH seem to be 'proof, proof, proof'. It's the equivalent of 'pics of gtfo' If the theory is correct, there's gonna be no proof. It it's not correct, there's still gonna be no proof. It's all just theory

Monty Burnz

EnterNow wrote: »

Granted, but your still never going to get proof for theories of this type. So why ask for it? All your posts against RTDH seem to be 'proof, proof, proof'. It's the equivalent of 'pics of gtfo' If the theory is correct, there's gonna be no proof. It it's not correct, there's still gonna be no proof. It's all just theory

But what's to stop me coming here and claiming that Ryan Tubridy was genetically engineered from a toad and a light shade? No proof will be forthcoming for that either - is it worth discussing? Is it worth me plaguing the forum with it?

Or should somebody point out that it's ridiculous and makes no sense?