David Icke's Official Forums (https://forum.davidicke.com/index.php)
-   General Chat (https://forum.davidicke.com/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   Princess Diana's Death: Remote control car theory. (https://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=151397)

sicknote 04-01-2011 03:36 AM

Princess Diana's Death: Remote control car theory.
 
Princess Diana's Death: The Strange Mystery of The Stolen Mercedes Involved In The Crash.


This theory just blew me away relating to Diana's death.

Is the theory genuine?.

Original Link: http://www.buzzle.com/articles/princ...the-crash.html


Quote:

A few days prior to the crash that killed Princess Diana, the Mercedes Benz in which she died was stolen! Strange thing is, when found the only thing missing from the car was the onboard computer chip; that chip is responsible for controlling steering and braking! Stranger still is why that Benz S280 was the "only available car" that night!.

One would expect that with the financial means Dodi Fayed and Princess Diana had at their disposal there was absolutely no reason why they should have been chauffeured in a vehicle that had been snatched at gunpoint a few days prior to the fateful night of August 31, 1997.

But that is precisely what happened!.

The car in which the ill-fated couple was traveling, a Mercedes Benz S280, had been stolen some days prior to the crash. This fact on its own is perhaps at best nothing more than pure coincidence but where that event turns decidedly strange is how that very Mercedes was returned a few days earlier in pristine condition save for one very important aspect…

THE ONBOARD COMPUTER CHIP WAS MISSING FROM THE STOLEN MERCEDES!.

The onboard computer chip controls, amongst other things, navigation, acceleration, steering and braking of a vehicle. Considering that Princess Diana's death was due to a car crash, the fact that the Mercedes S280 involved in the crash had its onboard computer chip stolen some days earlier (and nothing else mind you…suggesting the car-snatchers were no ordinary thieves) pushes the pervasive accident account onto firmer conspiracy territory.

To date there actually exists a well established assassination technique from the 1980s (developed by the British SAS) nicknamed "The Boston Brakes" which involves steering, braking and acceleration capability being taken over by remote control!

In fact world famous explorer and former SAS officer, Sir Ranulph Fiennes did indeed confirm the relatively common use of this assassination method with particular reference to the death in England of one Major Michael Marman in a car accident that bears uncanny resemblance to that of Princess Diana, Dodi Fayed and Henri Paul.

So what could have been the motive behind the theft of the Mercedes Benz S280 that was involved in the Paris tunnel crash on August 31, 1997?

Well let's see; assuming you want to execute a very sensitive, high profile assassination but at the same time create as little fuss as possible, the best way to go about it is to make it look like an accident.

Keeping that in mind the disappearance of the onboard computer chip from the "Crash S280" then makes a lot of sense. Steal the car, remove the onboard computer chip, replace the old chip with a new doctored onboard computer chip that allows another party to gain remote control over the car and tada...

You've got yourselves a genuine accident in the making!
Furthermore, very suspiciously, the stolen Mercedes Benz S280 was the only vehicle "available" to the Princess and her companions that night! Talk about leaving nothing to chance!

MERCEDES BENZ DENIED ACCESS TO EXAMINE CRASH VEHICLE!

Initial reports leaked to the press suggested that the Mercedes Benz S280 involved in the crash had been zooming at speeds in the neighborhood of 120 mph! If this were translated into km/h this would come out to a staggering 192 kilometers per hour!

In fact reports of the day had the speedometer of the car stuck at 196 kilometers per hour (122 mph).

The truth of the matter is if the car had been traveling anywhere near those speeds, seat-belt-or-not NOBODY would have survived that crash (the only person to survive the crash was bodyguard Trevor Rhys-Jones who sat in the passenger seat and widely believed to have been an operative of MI6 or MI5 branches of the British Secret Service).

Many professional drivers have decried the authority-cited-speeds (120mph region) as being absolutely preposterous and from the evidence available to them put the car at about 60 mph (96km/h) at the time of the accident.

To date, Mercedes Benz has never been able to examine the car for the simple reason the authorities never allowed them. This in itself is very strange because Mercedes Benz experts should have been party to the panel of experts examining the car!

Why?.

How about if for no other reason than they built and engineered the vehicle and thus would have been in an excellent position to determine how fast the car was going and what caused the various impact damage to the vehicle.

It would appear though that an internal investigation conducted by Mercedes Benz (albeit with the rather limited information available to them) seemed to suggest a speed of 60mph was far more reasonable than the 120mph spread by authorities and that the safety protective features of the Mercedes more or less behaved as expected.

This may explain why Trevor Rhys-Jones who was seat-belted in the passenger seat and thereby in the least likely position for surviving such an accident survived! (The passenger seat is known in the industry as "The Death Seat").

The Mercedes engineered safety mechanisms that helped preserve Mr Jones' life, incorporate the engine block being forced under the car and not into the passenger compartment following the tremendous force from such a collision as the one that occurred in the Paris tunnel that night.

NEW EVIDENCE SUGGESTS SEATBELT WAS PURPOSEFULLY JAMMED!

The widespread view is that had the Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed been wearing seatbelts they would have likely survived the crash! (Hmmm…perhaps not! Princess Diana did survive the crash and actually spoke to a French Doctor (not affiliated with the authorities who arrived shortly after) who was passing by at the time of the accident and as he administered the 1st first aid in his own words said "I thought her life could be saved").

Princess Diana ultimately died because of a suspicious 2 hour journey in an ambulance that snailed its way to a hospital 3.25 miles away averaging a speed of 25 mph and which conveniently bypassed 4 other hospitals on the way!

As it is there is new evidence that indicates that perhaps the reason Princess Diana was not wearing her seatbelt is because it was mysteriously but very conveniently jammed in such a way as to render it unusable!.

merlincove 04-01-2011 04:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sicknote (Post 1059566268)
Keeping that in mind the disappearance of the onboard computer chip from the "Crash S280" then makes a lot of sense. Steal the car, remove the onboard computer chip, replace the old chip with a new doctored onboard computer chip that allows another party to gain remote control over the car and tada...

If it was known that the chip was removed and replaced, i don't understand how it would have been known, given that the chip was replaced? If Mercedes were denied examination of the vehicle then how can it be ascertained that the chip was a duplicate / replacement item?

If the original chip had been removed then there must have been a chip there when the car was returned after the theft, the car wouldn't work without this chip - so how has the conclusion been reached to say the chip had been removed and substituted with a tampered item? I wonder why would they check this item?

And even if they did check, and if they could tell that the chip had been replaced, then why not simply replace it with a genuine and untampered chip?

Perhaps a better question to raise (in respect of the car) is why the failsafe rails that draw the engine underneath the car in a head on impact didn't work as intended (and as rigorously tested) - as the engine doesn't appear to have been guided under the car?

Quote:

The Mercedes engineered safety mechanisms that helped preserve Mr Jones' life, incorporate the engine block being forced under the car and not into the passenger compartment following the tremendous force from such a collision as the one that occurred in the Paris tunnel that night.
I'd like to see evidence to support the claim that the car was stolen a few nights prior to the accident, as well as evidence to support the claim that the Mercedes was the only car available on the ill fated night.

:D

ashangel 04-01-2011 06:25 AM

Its no theory, the method was developed by the SAS and explains all the things that the actual theories could not. look deeper.

Bear in mind Voyager 1 and 2 are remote control. and that russia had remote vehicles on the moon pre 1969.

eddieb 04-01-2011 07:49 AM

A book printed in 2002 entitled," Princess Diana. The Hidden Evidence ", authors: Jon King and John Beveridge. Goes into great detail about the Diana's death.
The authors put forth the theory that the Secret service and the Royal family were in cohoots to get rid of her. The underlying theory being that Diana was related to the Stuarts i.e. the true English Royal family as opposed to the Windsors who are a German usurper line.
The true English Royal bloodline goes back to Jesus who was really a normal man who married a normal woman and had children. The Romans had him killed because he conquered Rome in an earlier battle and then later Rome had him crucified. Romans only crucified people for crimes against Rome not for blasphemy, for that he would have simply been stoned to death!
I read the book with interest, the only drawback I had with the authors writings was related to the fact that they pushed the Holocaust theory of 6 million people being killed. I would have thought with the vast amount of knowledge that they must have at their finger tips that they would know that the Holocaust was just another Zionist propoganda story, story being the operative word!!

stevebell 04-01-2011 08:58 AM

it's a good theory. i read the car was stolen in april though, need to see the proof it was stolen just days before

it was a hire car though, so easiest way to doctor it is just hire it and replace the chip

merlincove 04-01-2011 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevebell (Post 1059566677)
it's a good theory. i read the car was stolen in april though, need to see the proof it was stolen just days before

it was a hire car though, so easiest way to doctor it is just hire it and replace the chip

Or do it at a service interval. Or get someone on the inside to do it.

merlincove 04-01-2011 11:47 AM

How is it 'known' the chip was replaced?

jewellerymaker 04-01-2011 12:37 PM

DI touches on this theory breifly in the Biggest Secret. It also apparently happened to someone else, Major Michael Marman, who died in a car crash. The person driving the other car, Sir Peter Horsley, described his car as having '...a mind of its own...and crossed over into the opposite direction'. Randulph Fiennes, the famous explorer, (who was an officer in the Royal Scots Greys and attached to the....SAS!) reports on this incident in his book about The Clinic who murdered people while making it look like an accident. (In Michael Clayton, a whistle blower is killed by injecting under his toenail to make it look like he had a heart attack).

All this information is taken from DI's book, The Biggest Secret.

My opinion? - anything is possible.

martg 04-01-2011 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by merlincove (Post 1059566949)
How is it 'known' the chip was replaced?

engine management chips have codes built into them for identifying the chip, to help tracking stolen vehicles.
but I am a little suspicious that anyone would think to check that the chip had been replaced.

islamvslizards 04-01-2011 12:57 PM

why would you need to replace chips? in an age when people can hack computers remotely, is it not impossible to imagine that theres secret technology available to hack a car remotely?

i dont believe in this theory tho, i believe in the using-light-as-a-weapon theory re: the fiat car in front of the mercedes flashing a light at a certain wavelength frequency to make the driver go unconscious and crash. would have looked like a paparazzi camera flash to bystanders.

sicknote 05-01-2011 01:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by merlincove (Post 1059566949)
How is it 'known' the chip was replaced?

If the S280 chip was stolen prior to the accident then it would have had to have a new one made and installed for it to drive. The chip would still be in the wreck.

As the chip was stolen after the crash, maybe it aroused suspicion?. Why else would that particular part go missing?. And the author has put 2 & 2 together, he may have come out with 4, then again, he could have come out with 5?.

theabominablephenomenon 05-01-2011 01:32 AM

Didn't Ickes Biggest Secret suggest that Al-Fayed insisted on the car being switched at the last minute?

sicknote 05-01-2011 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theabominablephenomenon (Post 1059569303)
Al-Fayed insisted on the car being switched at the last minute?

Why would he insist that?.

Mohamed 'Al' Fayed or Dodi?.

theabominablephenomenon 05-01-2011 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sicknote (Post 1059571838)
Why would he insist that?.

Mohamed 'Al' Fayed or Dodi?.

Al Fayed...
According to Icke he was probably behind it all.

Memory a bit sketchy on it though....
a good read the chapter on Diana if you've not read it.....

wise haven 05-01-2011 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ashangel (Post 1059566526)
Its no theory, the method was developed by the SAS and explains all the things that the actual theories could not. look deeper.

Bear in mind Voyager 1 and 2 are remote control. and that russia had remote vehicles on the moon pre 1969.

Indeed, very true - This capability has been around for donkeys years and common knowledge in the technical branches of various agencies. In fact, some of this tech is available off the shelf.......if you have the cash.
However, the tricky bit is removing the incriminating gadgetry before forensic engineers get their hands on the evidence.
If you want to get your hands on the "smoking gun" you need to look at who had access to the vehicle after the crash, was the evidence preserved or did unauthorized bods get an opportunity to fiddle about when no one was looking.

That is what I was told - could have been bullshit though:)

orderoutofchaos 05-01-2011 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jewellerymaker (Post 1059567038)
DI touches on this theory breifly in the Biggest Secret. It also apparently happened to someone else, Major Michael Marman, who died in a car crash. The person driving the other car, Sir Peter Horsley, described his car as having '...a mind of its own...and crossed over into the opposite direction'. Randulph Fiennes, the famous explorer, (who was an officer in the Royal Scots Greys and attached to the....SAS!) reports on this incident in his book about The Clinic who murdered people while making it look like an accident. (In Michael Clayton, a whistle blower is killed by injecting under his toenail to make it look like he had a heart attack).

All this information is taken from DI's book, The Biggest Secret.

My opinion? - anything is possible.

Didnt David Icke also say that Alfayed was in on it - complete and utter shite if you ask me, the man fought for 10 years to get the terrorists that did this.

theabominablephenomenon 05-01-2011 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by orderoutofchaos (Post 1059572056)
Didnt David Icke also say that Alfayed was in on it - complete and utter shite if you ask me, the man fought for 10 years to get the terrorists that did this.

Great cover for him though....
;)

orderoutofchaos 05-01-2011 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theabominablephenomenon (Post 1059572070)
Great cover for him though....
;)

This is the type of talk and theory that gives the people trying to expose the "real lies" a extremely hard time. Really, your thinking must be impaired if you think Alfayed was in on it. He caused the establishment no end of trouble fighting them for 10 years, spending his money, wasting his time. Ffs he called camilla a crocodile and Prince Phillip a Nazi. And they never sued him................... do you know why? Because they know the truth will come out.

theabominablephenomenon 05-01-2011 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by orderoutofchaos (Post 1059572087)
This is the type of talk and theory that gives the people trying to expose the "real lies" a extremely hard time. Really, your thinking must be impaired if you think Alfayed was in on it. He caused the establishment no end of trouble fighting them for 10 years, spending his money, wasting his time. Ffs he called camilla a crocodile and Prince Phillip a Nazi. And they never sued him................... do you know why? Because they know the truth will come out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by theabominablephenomenon (Post 1059572070)
Great cover for him though....
;)


I'm afraid you speculate as much as what you call nonsense.
:rolleyes:

orderoutofchaos 05-01-2011 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theabominablephenomenon (Post 1059572142)
I'm afraid you speculate as much as what you call nonsense.
:rolleyes:

Everything i stated is fact.


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:08 AM.