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:408 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.
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.
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. ;)
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.
I've pretty much read through that all. It seems that is a 'gyro' chip. Presumably it has a micro gyroscope inside it.
A gyro scope is a device that spins rapidly such that the centrifugal force that is created by the spining (such as when spinning a top) makes the entire device resistant to change orientation. It's the force that is partially responsible for making it possible to ride a bike.
They often used them in rockets, in the older days before GPS, as a way for the rocket to know which way it should go. The Hubble telescope has several that are required to allow it to be oriented in the right direction.
But gyros are useless in indicating where something it. All it does is allow a plane or whatever know which direction it's pointing now in 3D space compared to a direction it was pointed in the past. It doesn't know how far it traveled so it's not sufficient, alone, as a navigation device. But it helps.
And there's nothing in the article I noticed that indicated that this device would allow remote control of an aircraft from an external source. What I did see is that it is purposely wired into the navigation system as a backup in the event GPS fails, but even that is a step removed from allowing control of the plane to be taken over contrary to the wishes of the pilots.
I would concede that any aircraft depending on this chip for orientation would be vulnerable to crashing if it failed in zero visibility conditions, but that says nothing about allowing remote control capability.
To take over an aircraft remotely, it's only possible in an aircraft with a complete electronic system that routes all controls through a place where those signals could by cut off and fed alternate control information from another source. And there are likely hundreds of separate wires that contain all that info, so all of them would need to be circumvented and refed alternate information coming from an alternate remote source. I don't see that simply adding a chip to a flight control system as being a feasible way to do that **UNLESS** the flight control system was designed with that possibility in mind, with a socket already present for it to be placed. And even then, that chip would need to be capable of receiving information from a remote source doubtless much farther away than cell phones can function to relay to the flight control system.
On top of that, if you are going to control the plane correctly, a remote controller would need to get feedback info about the plane's status back to his control unit so he knows what further control is needed. I.e. is the plane starting to dive? If so, pull back on the elevator control. Are we banking left or right? Correct. What's the engine RPM? Too high, too low? Etc, etc. Trying to do it without that information would be like trying to drive a car with a blindfold on.
So, that's my take. And of course, 911 happened in 2001 when a lot of the tech we have today did not exist.
None of this completely rules out a remote control possibility, but if the CIA wanted this to happen, it sure would be a lot easier and "safer" to simply radicalize, incentivize, look the other way, and allow it to happen than it would be to do a remote control situation and risk so very much going wrong that simply wasn't planned, like the pilots being able to get the word out that they've lost electronic control of the planes.
I think it's important to consider these scenarios from the perspective of alleged perpetrators. Means, motive, and opportunity. If they wanted this end result, why would they do it a harder, more dangerous way instead of an easier, & safer way? One key element in the remote control scenario: The number of people "in-the-know" has to be kept to an extreme minimum as there are many people in gov that are good, honest people. Like Snowden.