Friday, June 29, 2007

Princess Diana's Death: The Mystery of The Stolen Mercedes

Princess Diana: The Disturbing Events Surrounding Her Death
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 is 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.

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!

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

Remarkably just like the Diana Express...Sorry, Daily Express :P Although I presume that was the author's intention.

Anonymous said...

You do realise that cars steered and braked perfectly before they had 'chips' put into them?

The chips are actually more to do with minor stuff like fuel consumption. The loss of one wouldn't cause a crash.

Anonymous said...

"The onboard computer chip controls, amongst other things, navigation, acceleration, steering and braking of a vehicle."

Anonymous said...

fuck the monarchy and fuck kings and queens

Anonymous said...

*sigh* this is just pathetic...just do us all a favour and jump off a building

Joe said...

You wouldn't be able to turn a car into a remote controlled car just by replacing the chip would you? you would need a whole lot of robotics to operate the steering wheel, gearstick, pedals etc...

K.K. B said...

Did you know that in cars of today all that is required to increase the vehicle's horsepower (hp) is a simple tweak of the onboard computer...Sure it may cost you $$$$ amount of dollars to have it done but the point is that is all it takes!

As for the technology to remote override a car...no you wouldn't need all that gear...but yes it is very specialized that is why your average joe-off-the-street cannot do it!

Anonymous said...

This idea about the cars chip being turned into a robot is silly. The chip if removed from an S280 will prevent the car from even moving. It controlls a lot more than minor systems.

I drive an S280 same year and model as the one Diana died in. I also know Mercedes engineers. The chip on the S280 is set to teh car, you cannot simply switch it over to a new one for instance.

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. If the chip was present it also ccontains logs of errors that can be read on a canbus one system. The chip wwould still be in the wreck.

Anonymous said...

nous ne sommes pas dupes

Anonymous said...

does anyone know what happened
to the mercedes?

It was move to England 8 years
after the accident. who owns it
now--where is it? etc.

The Angry Cheese. said...

Remote control cars? That's Just silly! Or is it?

http://newsbizarre.com/2009/04/video-queensday-attack-on-dutch-royal.html

and:
Another newspaper cutting, from September 3, 1991, quotes his vet as arguing that it is time to test Purdey's theory. And then one from the local paper, a few weeks later: "Riddle of vet's car on lorry's side of road" ' The Minchead inquest heard that he died after driving into the path of the lorry for no apparent reason... There was no evidence of any prior defect on the[car]". The verdict was accidental death.
The vet's death was reminiscent of an accident in which Purdey's solicitor – also a good friend - who had represented him at the High Court in the OP case, was killed. "His car lost control and hit a wall on a straight stretch of road * ".......
....In April, Dr Clive Bruton, curator of the Corsellis Collection Brain Bank at Rurnwell Hospital in Essex, was found dead in his crashed car after a heart attack.

taken from: www.warmwell.com/purdeypage.html

Anonymous said...

this is such naive nonsense, i don't know where to start.

Well, we'll start here:

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

Followed by: "replaced the old chip with a new doctored onboard computer chip..."

Make your mind up. Was the 'chip' missing, or replaced? Either way, steering remains mechanical; steering wheel/column/rack/front wheels. No 'chip' can control or overcome mechanical steering control. It just cannot.

But the one thing all of you well-meaning conspiracy theorists constantly miss, is this; Diana ALWAYS wore a seat-belt. So, in your quest for the 'truth' forget your idiotic 'laser beams in the eyes/alien intervention/missing computer 'chips' replaced by McDonald's chips' nonsense, and focus, instead, on a basic; why didn't she - or couldn't she - buckle up in a car where every safety system was optimised to work without fail?

From there, you might get some half meaningful - rather than half-arsed 'it was all ET's fault' answers...

Anonymous said...

Not a fantasy.
Differential braking and acceleration can steer a vehicle.
Early reports said police were puzzled by an acceleration skid mark, this before rumours of dodgey black boxes.
A tall ask for a 280 engined mercedes travelling at speed to do that if anti skid was working correctly.
Blackbox was indeed replaced according to Mercedes sources, this was a in-house rumour at the time.

As usual, what the spooks are using we get to see in the local Tandy shop 15 years later

http://www.autosec.org/pubs/cars-usenixsec2011.pdf

Mark said...

oh yes cant be done...

no way the ABS could lock up the front left tire causing it to steer to the left.

alot of new cars don't have throttle cables anymore they have an electronic throttle. potentiometer on the pedal and a motor on the throttle body.

and some newer cars have electronic power steering. electric motor that helps you turn the wheel. (N/A to this crash though)

so no longer do you have direct control of accelerator, brakes, or steering

and they wouldn't need need to install all sorts of robotics to make this happen. everything is installed from the factory

and the chip was stolen....they took the chip therefor stolen. the fact that they replaced the chip doesn't negate the fact that they stole the OEM one

Anonymous said...

A Mercedes S-Class W140 with 280 engine (2.8) has got MECHANICAL accelerator, HYDRAULIC steering and of course it cannot accelerate from one side and not from another (MECHANICAL differential). Also, ABS is electronically controled, yes. But brake system is COMPLETELY MECHANICAL and it's imposible to remote-control it. You don't know anything about cars. What a great amount of lies and stupid comments!

Anonymous said...

I think it was accident I've heard of such things