Anonymous ID: eead52 Jan. 10, 2022, 11 a.m. No.15344469   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun

Oldie but a goodie:

 

Remember when NYT/Clowns In America threatened Q/Q+ soon after the Q drops began?

 

Nov 12 article was posted.

 

This means Q drops up to Nov 12 are VERY important.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/12/us/nsa-shadow-brokers.html

 

WASHINGTON โ€” Jake Williams awoke last April in an Orlando, Fla., hotel where he was leading a training session. Checking Twitter, Mr. Williams, a cybersecurity expert, was dismayed to discover that he had been thrust into the middle of one of the worst security debacles ever to befall American intelligence.

 

Mr. Williams had written on his company blog about the Shadow Brokers, a mysterious group that had somehow obtained many of the hacking tools the United States used to spy on other countries. Now the group had replied in an angry screed on Twitter. It identified him โ€” correctly โ€” as a former member of the National Security Agencyโ€™s hacking group, Tailored Access Operations, or T.A.O., a job he had not publicly disclosed. Then the Shadow Brokers astonished him by dropping technical details that made clear they knew about highly classified hacking operations that he had conducted.

 

Americaโ€™s largest and most secretive intelligence agency had been deeply infiltrated.

 

โ€œThey had operational insight that even most of my fellow operators at T.A.O. did not have,โ€ said Mr. Williams, now with Rendition Infosec, a cybersecurity firm he founded. โ€œI felt like Iโ€™d been kicked in the gut. Whoever wrote this either was a well-placed insider or had stolen a lot of operational data.โ€

 

The jolt to Mr. Williams from the Shadow Brokersโ€™ riposte was part of a much broader earthquake that has shaken the N.S.A. to its core. Current and former agency officials say the Shadow Brokers disclosures, which began in August 2016, have been catastrophic for the N.S.A., calling into question its ability to protect potent cyberweapons and its very value to national security. The agency regarded as the worldโ€™s leader in breaking into adversariesโ€™ computer networks failed to protect its own.

Anonymous ID: eead52 Jan. 10, 2022, 11:09 a.m. No.15344532   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun

>>15344498

>https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/01/finally-cdc-director-walensky-admits-vast-majority-covid-deaths-not-one-not-two-not-three-least-four-comorbidities/

 

THIS is why Twitter and Facebook BANNED the "6%" memes.

Anonymous ID: eead52 Jan. 10, 2022, 11:12 a.m. No.15344551   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>4569

>>15344531

FYI, random anon viewing the meme you postedโ€ฆ

Those IDs right beside the timestamp?

They do not necessarily indicate the same PERSON posted them.

Many an anon could be posting using VPNs that generate the same identifier.

Again, this is just fyi

Anonymous ID: eead52 Jan. 10, 2022, 11:26 a.m. No.15344646   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>4653 >>4665

>>15344627

You mean you seriously believe that what I said is factually incorrect?

Please tell me you're joking.

If you're joking, ok, weird funny 'joke' I guess but if you're serious, hate to break it to you but you're going to be deluding yourself every time you link those identifiers to individual people.

 

Multiple anons ARE ALREADY posting under 'the same IP'.

Anonymous ID: eead52 Jan. 10, 2022, 11:31 a.m. No.15344683   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>4689 >>4697 >>4700

>>15344653

>everyone believes you

I feel bad for you.

I don't 'respond' to such mass formation psychosis techniques of group think slander.

Network admins will know what I am saying is factually correct.

(It's how I know it's factual).

By the way, you haven't 'debunked' what I said, you just immediately called me a name after I helped offer you some truthful advise.

Why are you acting so hostile to anon?

It is a fact that when anons use VPNs, the same identifier COULD show.

Anonymous ID: eead52 Jan. 10, 2022, 11:37 a.m. No.15344704   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>4719

>>15344689

Good for anon, not so good for you as is becoming very clear.

Still waiting for you to 'explain' how what I said is false.

Simply calling me names each time will only display your own lack of the requisite skillset on how VPNs work.