Freedom4um

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

9/11
See other 9/11 Articles

Title: "September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor" - Full version (1/3)
Source: [None]
URL Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1GCeuSr3Mk
Published: Sep 7, 2013
Author: luogocomune2
Post Date: 2019-02-03 12:37:52 by BTP Holdings
Keywords: None
Views: 231
Comments: 9

To see the fully indexed film in one page go to www.youtube.com/redirect?...viewarticle%26artid%3D167 You can also purchase the 5-hour film in a 3 DVD set. Free duplication and distribution of all DVDs by Massimo Mazzucco is encouraged. Italian and French versions also available. Full info at luogocomune.net.


Poster Comment:

We must never forget that the installation of the QRS-11 chip in all commercial aircraft as a means to over-ride the pilots controls in the event of hijacking was the main cause of the events of 9-11-2001. When that chip was activated the planes could be flown from ground control units the same as a model airplane. Only whoever was at the controls had no loyalty to the United States and was certainly intent on causing extreme havoc. The events of 9-11 were an administrative coup d'état and George W. Bush was handed his head on a platter.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 3.

#1. To: BTP Holdings (#0)

We must never forget that the installation of the QRS-11 chip in all commercial aircraft as a means to over-ride the pilots controls in the event of hijacking was the main cause of the events of 9-11-2001. When that chip was activated the planes could be flown from ground control units the same as a model airplane.

I've started watching this and it's interesting, but am dubious that simply installing a chip would turn an aircraft into a remotely piloted aircraft.

To take over an aircraft, a component is required that will accept control signals from an external source. In this age, we do have wifi chips you can plug into your USB port on your PC to accept mouse signals, but 1) those are only short range and 2) this is some 16 years after 2001.

For long range, high altitude aircraft, receiving signals would certainly require some kind of an antenna. The chip would also need to be able to interrupt and circumvent the controls from the cockpit crew. I don't think a single chip would be capable of that. The aircraft control system would likely be required to have that ability built into it via the initial design.

Remote control is obviously possible but doing it with a single chip in the year 2001? I don't buy that.

Pinguinite  posted on  2019-02-03   13:54:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Pinguinite (#1) (Edited)

Remote control is obviously possible but doing it with a single chip in the year 2001? I don't buy that.

Have you ever seen the patent for the chip? And what makes you think that whoever was at the ground control unit did not have access to a powerful directional antenna?

Also there is little proof that a plane crashed at Shanksville, PA. ;)

BTP Holdings  posted on  2019-02-04   8:04:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: BTP Holdings (#2)

Have you ever seen the patent for the chip?

No, I haven't.

And what makes you think that whoever was at the ground control unit did not have access to a powerful directional antenna?

A directional antenna. As in, a dish that focuses a signal in one direction in 3 dimensional space that must be aimed and tracking a moving target that is not within visible sight range, and if more than 60-80 miles away, could be below the horizon.

Well, maybe.

Also there is little proof that a plane crashed at Shanksville, PA. ;)

Okay, what you just did here is what undermines the credibility of the 911 truth movement. On this thread you have taken 2 largely contradictory positions. 1) That aircraft may have been remotely hi-jacked on 911 and 2) that the plane in Shanksville may not have been one of the planes that was remotely highjacked. (And the same for the Pentagon).

I mean, were planes hijacked or not?

For both to be true, we have to go with this more outlandish theory that the hijacked planes were flown to some military or remote airport somewhere so the passengers and plane could be disposed of in some controlled and secret way -- when the best way to do that is just to have the planes fly into a building just as you want the whole world believe actually happened. And it's not like they care about the people on the plane as they are already fine with killing many thousands of people in NY, so why be concerned about a couple hundred more?

It defies logic.

I will say this much. If the gov put me in charge of orchestrating 911, one of the things I would certainly see to is the covert promotion of all kinds of ridiculous allegations about how it was an inside job. That way, the many ridiculous claims that are easily dismissed would destroy the credibility of the relatively few allegations that are spot on.

People mistrust the gov and that is obviously very understandable. But if one takes that mistrust to the point of ignoring any critical thinking, then it plays right into the hands of whatever nefarious forces that may exist within the gov to which one is so direly opposed.

Pinguinite  posted on  2019-02-04   11:31:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 3.

#4. To: Pinguinite (#3)

For your edification. ;)

steemit.com/qrs11/@red-pi...77-qrs11-chip-living-the- american-nightmare

BTP Holdings  posted on  2019-02-04 20:40:51 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 3.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest