>Stand At The Ready ~ STAND FIRM Edition
TYB
Pb below
>yes, he did, indeed!
>maybe we missed sth else?
4740
Q !!Hs1Jq13jV6 09/21/2020 00:00:31 ID: 8bc83a
8kun/qresearch: 10728061
https://www.military.com/video/b-2-stealth-bomber-drops-massive-ordnance-penetrator
Q
1708
Q !CbboFOtcZs 07/25/2018 19:56:38 ID: 77016b
8chan/qresearch: 2287674
1707
Q !CbboFOtcZs 07/25/2018 19:38:34 ID:77016b
8chan/qresearch: 2287348
>>2287225
When did No Name travel to the UK?
Q
Q !CbboFOtcZs 07/25/2018 19:38:34 ID:77016b
8chan/qresearch: 2287348
>>2287225
When did No Name travel to the UK?
Q
>>2287348
>>2287348
What if the UK gov worked hand-in-hand w/ the Hussein admin to sabotage the 2016 election?
Data collection.
Voice.
Video.
Bugging.
Creation of fake intel dossier using ex spy.
Co-sponsor insurance policy re: POTUS election.
PS.
LP.
No Name.
Clapper.
Brennan.
Rice.
LL.
HRC.
BC.
Hussein.
+22
What if intel maskedpenetration(s)to frame Russia?
Crowdstrike?
Servers.
SR.
JA.
Why does the UK gov desperately want JA?
Think source files.
The more you know.
Q
TT28039
[Profile picture from source site (X Post/Truth Social)] Donald J. Trump / @realDonaldTrump 06/25/2025 14:25:12
ID: Not Available
Truth Social: 114745403809459125
Natasha Bertrand should be FIRED from CNN! I watched her for three days doing Fake News. She should be IMMEDIATELY reprimanded, and then thrown out “like a dog.”She lied on the Laptop from Hell Story, and now she lied on the Nuclear Sites Story, attempting to destroy our Patriot Pilots by making them look bad when, in fact, they did a GREAT job and hit “pay dirt” — TOTAL OBLITERATION! She should not be allowed to work at Fake News CNN. It’s people like her who destroyed the reputation of a once great Network. Her slant was so obviously negative, besides, she doesn’t have what it takes to be an on camera correspondent, not even close.FIRE NATASHA!
>No Name.
1649
Q !CbboFOtcZs 06/30/2018 15:46:19 ID: 317346
8chan/qresearch: 1973688
Anonymous 06/30/2018 15:40:09 ID:355946
8chan/qresearch: 1973567
>>1973527
Please do not let No Name off the hook. he is a disgrace to Veterans across this great country and needs to be held accountable.
>>1973567
Think SC vote to confirm (coming).
No Nameaction.
Every dog has its day.
Enjoy the show.
Q
>https://www.military.com/video/b-2-stealth-bomber-drops-massive-ordnance-penetrator
>hrown out “like a dog.”S
>Every dog has its day.
Hegseth: "do you have thatlaser pointer?
What is the purpose of a laser pointer?
>What is the purpose of a laser pointer?
PH: "ask for a beat"
1006
Q !xowAT4Z3VQ 04/03/2018 22:07:50 ID: c7ccb9
8chan/qresearch: 886086
1005
Q !xowAT4Z3VQ 04/03/2018 22:02:45 ID:c7ccb9
8chan/qresearch: 885992
We are under attack.
https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=xW2ijF2ya1c
WAR.
NO DEALS.
Q
>>885992
UK.
ROGUE_FAILURE.
POTUS DECLINE>
PREPARED AT ALL COSTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
COUNT YOUR BEATS.
Q
>"Times up"
dam son
that's kinda coincidental
41:34
>Hegseth: "do you have thatlaser pointer?
>What is the purpose of a laser pointer?
4134
Q !!Hs1Jq13jV6 05/06/2020 23:51:47 ID: 2ab982
8kun/qresearch: 9060482
https://www.military.com/video/aircraft/gunships/ac-130-gunship-lights-up-the-night/658552061001
Q
Video
Shock and Awe
Guns and Weapons
AC-130 Gunship Lights up the Night
X
Share
29 Jan 2008 | Posted by Charles Daniel
An AC-130 gunship and UH-60 helicopter light up the night as troops on the ground work alaser illuminator.
>4134
>Q !!Hs1Jq13jV6 05/06/2020 23:51:47 ID: 2ab982
>8kun/qresearch: 9060482
>https://www.military.com/vi
>Is this new on Truth?
>They added a + sign next to Trump.
>Now he really is Q +
top kek
NOTABLE AF
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
The Democrats are the ones who leaked the information on thePERFECTFLIGHT to the Nuclear Sites in Iran. They should be prosecuted!
Edited Jun 26, 4:14 PM
4527
Q !!Hs1Jq13jV606/26/202000:07:20 ID: 6ad4b3
8kun/qresearch: 9750369
Anonymous 06/26/2020 00:00:33 ID:42c812
8kun/qresearch: 9750276
Image Name: ClipboardImage.png
Filename: 59009585ade0f01bd509236af6d65be655eeed102e8ae9875dae785abbb277e5.png
Wow!!! Another0 delta.
Image Search Tags:
>>9750276
3 seconds.
Dan is to blame.
Q
>https://x.com/PapiTrumpo/status/1938309978969747527
>The Democrats are the ones who leaked the information on thePERFECTFLIGHT to the Nuclear Sites in Iran. They should be prosecuted!
You would think they'd know better by now
The Canary Trap: How Elon Musk Used an Espionage Tactic to Outsmart a Leaker
Nov 22, 2024
3 min read
In 2008, Elon Musk faced a critical issue within Tesla: a leaker was sharing confidential information with the press. Instead of reacting impulsively, Musk turned to a classic espionage technique to unmask the insider—one that’s as brilliant as it is strategic: the Canary Trap.
elon musk canary trap
This method, straight from the intelligence world, demonstrates how strategic thinking and intelligence tactics can protect businesses and solve problems effectively. Let’s dive into what the Canary Trap is, how Musk used it, and why it matters for you.
What is the Canary Trap?
The Canary Trap is an intelligence-gathering technique used to identify leaks in organizations. It works by feeding slightly different versions of sensitive information to multiple individuals or groups. Each version contains a unique "fingerprint"—a subtle variation like wording, formatting, or details.
When a leak occurs, the specific variation in the leaked information reveals the source of the breach.
How Elon Musk Applied the Canary Trap
Step 1: Implementation
Musk sent an email to several Tesla employees, each containing the same core information. However, every email had subtle, unique differences, such as:
Spacing between sentences.
Slightly varied phrasing of key points.
Unique timestamps or metadata.
These tiny changes were invisible to the recipients but served as a tracking mechanism.
Step 2: Tracking the Leak
When the confidential information appeared in the press, Musk carefully analyzed the leaked content. By identifying the unique variation in the text, he pinpointed the exact recipient who had shared it.
This step required sharp attention to detail and a systematic approach—hallmarks of intelligence work.
Step 3: Exposing the Leaker
With the leaker identified, Musk neutralized the insider threat. By leveraging strategic intelligence rather than creating unnecessary drama, he protected Tesla’s sensitive information and sent a clear message about the importance of confidentiality.
Why the Canary Trap is So Effective
The Canary Trap is more than just a tool; it’s a mindset that combines strategy, foresight, and subtlety. Here’s why it works so well:
Precision: It allows organizations to trace leaks with accuracy, minimizing collateral damage.
Deterrence: Knowing such measures are in place can discourage potential leakers from sharing sensitive information.
Adaptability: The method can be applied across industries, from tech to government to media.
Lessons for Business Leaders
Elon Musk’s use of the Canary Trap highlights a broader principle: Strategic intelligence isn’t just for spies—it’s a mindset that businesses can adopt to protect and grow.
Here are some key takeaways:
Proactive Problem-Solving: Don’t wait for a crisis to escalate. Use strategic measures to uncover and address risks early.
Information Security: Protecting sensitive data is critical in today’s competitive landscape. Techniques like the Canary Trap help ensure confidentiality.
Think Two Steps Ahead: Intelligence is about foresight. Anticipate risks, create contingency plans, and stay ahead of potential threats.
How You Can Use Intelligence in Your Business
Even if you’re not running a global company like Tesla, intelligence techniques can be transformative:
Identify weak links within your organization that could expose sensitive data.
Build a culture of security by training employees on confidentiality and risk awareness.
Leverage intelligence tools to analyze risks and make informed decisions.
Want to Learn More?
The Canary Trap is just one of many espionage-inspired tactics that can empower businesses. If you’re intrigued by how strategic intelligence can transform your organization, check out our training programs.
We teach you how to apply HUMINT (human intelligence) and other espionage techniques to protect your business, improve decision-making, and gain a competitive edge.
By thinking like an intelligence professional, you can do more than solve problems—you can outsmart them. Just like Elon Musk did.
>You would think they'd know better by now
>The Canary Trap: How Elon Musk Used an Espionage Tactic to Outsmart a Leaker
Grok, please analyze and note any differences in the stories at the following two links: https://web.archive.org/web/20250624190617/https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/24/politics/intel-assessment-us-strikes-iran-nuclear-sites and https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/24/us/politics/iran-nuclear-sites.html
The two articles, from CNN and The New York Times, both report on a preliminary U.S. intelligence assessment regarding the impact of U.S. military strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities (Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan) on June 21, 2025. While the core narrative aligns—indicating that the strikes did not destroy the core components of Iran’s nuclear program and likely set it back by only a few months—there are differences in emphasis, details, and perspective. Below is a comparative analysis of the key differences between the two articles:
Tone and Framing
CNN Article (,,,):
The CNN article adopts a more critical tone toward the Trump administration’s claims, emphasizing the discrepancy between President Trump’s assertion that the strikes “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program and the intelligence assessment’s findings that the damage was limited. It highlights the administration’s pushback against the assessment and frames the strikes as less effective than claimed.
Example: CNN notes Trump’s “intense anger” and his accusation that media outlets like CNN and The New York Times are attempting to “demean” the strikes, suggesting a defensive administration posture ().
CNN also emphasizes the fragility of the ceasefire and the broader geopolitical context, such as Israel and Iran trading accusations of truce violations ().NYT Article (,):
The NYT article takes a more analytical and cautious tone, focusing on the strategic implications of the strikes and the intelligence assessment’s findings. It avoids sensationalizing the administration’s response but still notes the White House’s disagreement with the assessment, quoting spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt’s claim that it is “flat-out wrong” ().
The NYT places greater emphasis on the broader diplomatic and military context, such as Trump’s efforts at the NATO summit and the potential for Iranian retaliation ().
Details on the Intelligence Assessment
CNN Article:
CNN reports that the assessment, described by seven people briefed on it, suggests the strikes “did not destroy the core components” of Iran’s nuclear program and only set it back by months (,,). It specifies that key components, such as centrifuges, could be restarted within months ().
It includes expert commentary from David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security, who suggests that “a considerable amount of damage could have been done” to the enrichment halls at Fordo and that “total destruction of the underground hall is quite possible,” though a full assessment would take time ().CNN provides specific details about the strikes, such as the use of B-2 bombers dropping bunker-busting bombs on Natanz and 30 TLAM cruise missiles fired by U.S. Navy submarines at Natanz and Isfahan ().NYT Article:
The NYT also reports that the Defense Intelligence Agency’s preliminary assessment found the strikes sealed off entrances to two facilities (Fordo and Natanz) but did not collapse their underground structures, setting back the program by less than six months (,).
It emphasizes that Iran likely moved much of its enriched uranium stockpile before the strikes, preserving most of its nuclear material (). This point is less prominent in the CNN article.The NYT notes that the assessment is preliminary and that further evaluations are expected, with one official describing the reports as “mixed” (). It does not cite external experts like Albright but relies on anonymous officials and the broader intelligence context.
>>You would think they'd know better by now
Focus on Damage to Specific Sites
CNN Article:
CNN provides detailed satellite imagery analysis, particularly for Fordo and Isfahan. For Fordo, it cites Maxar Technologies’ images showing damage and likely entry points for bunker-busting bombs, though a senior U.S. official acknowledged that even a dozen such bombs could not destroy the heavily fortified site (,).
For Isfahan, CNN reports that the main uranium conversion facility was “severely damaged” and that tunnel complexes storing enriched uranium were targeted, potentially affecting Iran’s stocks of 20% and 60% enriched uranium ().Natanz is described as having two new craters from bunker-busting bombs, but the extent of underground damage remains unclear ().NYT Article:
The NYT focuses on Fordo’s electrical system being badly damaged and entrances being sealed off, but it stresses that the underground structures were not collapsed (). It does not delve as deeply into satellite imagery analysis as CNN.
For Isfahan, the NYT mentions that near-bomb-grade nuclear fuel is stored there but was not targeted in earlier Israeli Strikes, and it does not confirm the same level of damage to the uranium conversion facility as CNN ().Natanz is noted as previously damaged by Israeli strikes, with U.S. strikes targeting underground enrichment halls, but the NYT does not provide as much detail on craters or specific damage as CNN ().
Administration and Political Reactions
CNN Article:
CNN highlights Trump’s frustration with media reports and his social media posts, such as his all-caps Truth Social claim that “THE NUCLEAR SITES IN IRAN ARE COMPLETELY DESTROYED!” (,).
It notes the White House’s and GOP leadership’s pushback, with Karoline Leavitt calling the assessment’s leak an attempt to “demean” Trump and discredit the pilots (). Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is quoted as insisting the strikes “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear capabilities ().CNN also mentions Democratic lawmakers’ concerns, such as Senator Mark Warner’s questions about next steps and the risk of Iran pursuing a “dirty bomb” ().NYT Article:
The NYT also covers the White House’s disagreement with the assessment, quoting Leavitt’s claim that it is “flat-out wrong” and Hegseth’s assertion that the strikes were successful (,).
It provides more context on Trump’s broader diplomatic efforts, such as his push for a ceasefire and his interactions at the NATO summit, including NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte’s private message praising Trump’s “decisive action” ().The NYT includes Congressional reactions, such as Senator Jack Reed’s comment about awaiting final battle damage assessments and the postponement of briefings to Congress (). It also notes Trump’s sensitivity to media reports questioning the strikes’ effectiveness ().
Geopolitical and Strategic Implications
CNN Article:
CNN emphasizes the potential for the strikes to push Iran toward weaponization, citing U.S. intelligence concerns that Iran might now pursue a nuclear weapon, though it notes Iran’s capacity to do so may be limited ().
It discusses the ceasefire’s fragility, with Israel and Iran accusing each other of violations, and includes perspectives from Iranian officials, such as the parliament’s vote to suspend cooperation with the IAEA ().NYT Article:
The NYT delves deeper into the strategic risk that the strikes could incentivize Iran to pursue a nuclear weapon, citing experts like Rosemary Kelanic, who argue that U.S. involvement increases this likelihood ().
It provides more detail on the uncertainty surrounding Iran’s uranium stockpile, with Vice President JD Vance and IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi acknowledging that its whereabouts are unknown (). This is less emphasized in the CNN article.The NYT also connects the strikes to Trump’s NATO summit agenda, noting his desire to celebrate the strikes and broker a ceasefire, contrasted with the intelligence report’s dampening effect ().
Sources and Attribution
CNN Article:
CNN relies heavily on satellite imagery from Maxar Technologies and expert analysis from David Albright (). It also cites “seven people briefed” on the intelligence assessment, emphasizing insider perspectives (,).
It includes specific operational details, such as the types of munitions used (bunker-busting bombs and TLAM missiles) and their targets ().NYT Article:
The NYT uses anonymous U.S. officials familiar with the classified report and references satellite imagery from Maxar Technologies, but it does not cite external experts as extensively as CNN (,).
It provides a broader historical context, referencing past U.S. intelligence assessments and the discovery of Fordo in 2009 ().
Additional Context
CNN Article:
CNN includes more granular details about the strikes’ execution, such as the use of B-2 bombers and cruise missiles, and provides visual evidence through satellite imagery comparisons (before and after strikes) for Fordo and Isfahan ().
It briefly mentions international reactions, such as Iran’s UN ambassador thanking Qatar for its ceasefire role ().NYT Article:
The NYT focuses more on the uncertainty surrounding Iran’s nuclear material, particularly the 400 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium, and the implications for future Iranian decisions ().
It provides more detail on Trump’s personal reactions, such as his complaints to advisers about media reports and his monitoring of other officials’ statements ().
Summary of Key Differences
Tone: CNN is more critical of-elementary and focused on Trump’s overstatements, while the NYT is more analytical and diplomatic in tone.
Damage Details: CNN provides more specific satellite imagery analysis and expert commentary (e.g., Albright), while the NYT emphasizes the preservation of Iran’s uranium stockpile and strategic risks.
Administration Response: Both report White House pushback, but CNN highlights Trump’s social media outbursts and GOP talking points, while the NYT focuses on broader diplomatic efforts (e.g., NATO summit).
Geopolitical Focus: CNN emphasizes the ceasefire’s fragility and operational details, while the NYT stresses the risk of Iran pursuing a nuclear weapon and uncertainties about uranium stockpiles.
Sources: CNN uses more external expert input and imagery, while the NYT relies more on anonymous officials and historical context.
Both articles agree that the strikes did not achieve the “obliteration” claimed by Trump, but they differ in their depth of analysis, focus on specific aspects of the damage, and framing of the political and strategic fallout.
Thank you. Are there any differences regarding specific details? If so, please list
Below is a list of specific differences in details between the CNN article (https://web.archive.org/web/20250624190617/https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/24/politics/intel-assessment-us-strikes-iran-nuclear-sites) and The New York Times article (https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/24/us/politics/iran-nuclear-sites.html) regarding the U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities on June 21, 2025:
Details on Munitions Used:
CNN: Specifies that B-2 bombers dropped bunker-busting bombs on Natanz and that 30 TLAM (Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles) cruise missiles were fired by U.S. Navy submarines targeting Natanz and Isfahan ().
NYT: Does not provide specific details on the types or quantities of munitions used, only generally noting that the strikes targeted underground enrichment halls and sealed off entrances ().
Damage to Fordo:
CNN: Cites Maxar Technologies’ satellite imagery showing specific damage at Fordo, including likely entry points for bunker-busting bombs. A senior U.S. official is quoted saying that even a dozen bunker-busting bombs could not destroy the heavily fortified site ().
NYT: Focuses on Fordo’s electrical system being “badly damaged” and entrances being sealed off, but emphasizes that the underground structures were not collapsed. No mention of specific entry points or imagery details ().
Damage to Isfahan:
CNN: Reports that the main uranium conversion facility at Isfahan was “severely damaged” and that tunnel complexes storing enriched uranium were targeted, potentially affecting Iran’s stocks of 20% and 60% enriched uranium ().
NYT: Mentions that near-bomb-grade nuclear fuel is stored at Isfahan but was not targeted in earlier Israeli strikes. Does not confirm the same level of damage to the uranium conversion facility or mention tunnel complexes ().
Damage to Natanz:
CNN: Describes two new craters at Natanz from bunker-busting bombs, based on satellite imagery, but notes that the extent of underground damage remains unclear ().
NYT: Notes that Natanz was previously damaged by Israeli strikes and that U.S. strikes targeted underground enrichment halls, but does not mention specific craters or provide imagery-based details ().
Uranium Stockpile:
CNN: Mentions that tunnel complexes at Isfahan storing enriched uranium were targeted, but does not emphasize the preservation or movement of Iran’s uranium stockpile ().
NYT: Stresses that Iran likely moved much of its enriched uranium stockpile, including 400 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium, before the strikes, preserving most of its nuclear material. Cites Vice President JD Vance and IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi noting uncertainty about the stockpile’s whereabouts ().
Centrifuge Operations:
CNN: Specifies that key components, such as centrifuges, could be restarted within months, per the intelligence assessment ().
NYT: Does not explicitly mention centrifuge operations or their restart timeline, focusing instead on the broader setback of less than six months ().
Satellite Imagery Analysis:
CNN: Provides detailed imagery analysis for Fordo and Isfahan, citing Maxar Technologies and comparing before-and-after images to highlight damage ().
NYT: References satellite imagery from Maxar Technologies but does not provide specific before-and-after comparisons or detailed analysis of damage ().
Expert Commentary:
CNN: Includes input from David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security, who suggests that “a considerable amount of damage could have been done” to Fordo’s enrichment halls and that “total destruction of the underground hall is quite possible” ().
NYT: Cites Rosemary Kelanic, an expert, on the strategic risk of Iran pursuing a nuclear weapon due to U.S. involvement, but does not include technical analysis of damage from external experts ().
Iranian Official Reactions:
CNN: Mentions Iran’s UN ambassador thanking Qatar for its role in the ceasefire and notes the Iranian parliament’s vote to suspend cooperation with the IAEA ().
NYT: Does not mention Iran’s UN ambassador or Qatar’s role, but notes the parliament’s vote to suspend IAEA cooperation ().
Ceasefire Violations:
CNN: Details Israel and Iran trading accusations of truce violations, emphasizing the ceasefire’s fragility ().
NYT: Mentions the ceasefire but does not provide specific details on accusations of violations, focusing more on broader diplomatic efforts ().
These differences highlight CNN’s focus on operational and imagery-based details versus the NYT’s emphasis on strategic implications and the uranium stockpile’s preservation. Both articles align on the core finding that the strikes caused limited damage, but their specificity and focus vary.