May 20 2015
UPDATE: STUXNET WAS DEFINITELY USED TO CRASH THE TRAIN; IT IS TOTALLY PROVEN.
FACT 1: The section of track the train crashed on was a speed-restricted section, which means the computer takes over during that section and won't let the conductor go faster than the set limit (in this case 50 mph) even if he wants to. CONCLUSION: The conductor did not cause this.
FACT 2: The conductor unexpectedly survived, and said the speed readouts on the train showed 50 mph up until he blacked out. Yet investigators have proven the train was doing 107 mph when it crashed. CONCLUSION: Something was amiss in the electronic controls that provide the readouts.
FACT 3: Survivors on the train said it was riding as smooth as glass up until the crash. CONCLUSION: The tracks were in excellent condition, SO GOOD that they did not have enough bumps and shakes to let anyone know the train was way over speed. This would have hid an impending crash reality from the conductor.
FACT 4: The crash happened at night, which also would have concealed the speed of the train from the conductor. CONCLUSION: He probably just looked at the readouts and believed them, not realizing anything was amiss at all until he woke up after blacking out. At 107 mph, he probably bounced off the interior of the engine and blacked out less than a quarter of a second after the train left the tracks, far too short of a time to realize anything happened at all.
FACT 5: The engine was brand spanking new, far less than a year old. CONCLUSION: It had all the nice, new, modern, perfectly programmed to allow hacking, computerized controls on it; and ADDITIONALLY, was new enough so the conductor may not have been fully acquainted with every last sound the motors made; and on top of that, the motors were probably extremely quiet, which would also conceal the fact that the train was going way too fast.
FACT 6, AND HERE IS THE CLINCHER THAT PROVES IT WAS STUXNET OR A STUXNET VARIANT: The control readouts all indicated a low speed at a time when the train was doing over 100. What industrial virus keeps control readouts normal while it destroys a facility and everything goes kablooey? ANSWER: STUXNET, and ONLY STUXNET. This is how Israel wrecked many of Iran's nuclear centrifuges: Stuxnet spun them too fast; all the while, the readouts said the speed was normal, JUST LIKE THIS TRAIN. There is no difference between a centrifuge motor speed readout and a speedometer. The zio clan is totally hosed with this one: THEY CRASHED THIS TRAIN, AND THERE IS NO WAY OUT OF IT.
Now the big question is: Since this train operates in America's main political corridor, WHO was on that train the zio clan wanted killed?
Stuxnet Amtrak crash in Philadelphia involving train heavily used by politicians
An Amtrak train went off the tracks while going 106 miles an hour in the immediate approach to a 50 mph curve. Early reports said there was a huge explosion before derailment, but I do not know what to make of them because people on the train have not said anything about an explosion. It looks like a scrap yard, not a train wreck – and only 6 people died? YEAH RIGHT!
This was probably caused by a zio clan hack.
The trains are computer controlled, with the conductor in a supervisory position; and that leaves serious room for questioning how one hit a 50 mph curve at 106 mph, when it should have slowed down for it automatically; AND this happened right after it left a station, which means if there was a curve that close, it should not have sped up at all.
The whitewash is on now – and guess what? Another computer controlled subway train in Mexico City came into a station yesterday and rear-ended another train at full speed. They explained it away as communication glitches and wet tracks – but what a coincidence! The subway trains were amazingly shredded (like I never thought that could ever happen), and I suspected the zio clan played a game even before this latest Amtrak crash.
The Amtrak crash happened so soon after the train left the station that tickets had not been collected yet. One man said, "We were rolling along nice and smooth, and then all of a sudden we were on our side." Which is exactly what would happen if all the train did was accelerate to a point of doom. Try a 50 mph turn at 106. If you are asleep in the back seat (the perspective of all passengers), you will be going along nice and smooth – and just "suddenly" (fill in the blank)….
There are other reports – such as it wobbled and went off the tracks, the brakes were hit and it went off the tracks… but this is what would be felt in the back of the train as the front flew off the tracks. Most likely, the man who said it was all smooth and then the car was on its side was probably near the front.
106 is not fast for this particular train, which travels at up to 150 mph. The problem was that it hit a 50 mph curve at 106. If this was not a threat and was instead an actual assassination attempt, it seems it probably failed. One car got the brunt of the action and was mangled beyond belief, but 5 were in fairly good condition afterwards. Not bad for 106 mph. It could have been worse.
I am going to stick with the original statements, because we all know what happens with the whitewash. BUT I WILL SAY THIS: Think back to the time frame prior to 6 or 7 years ago. Most of the the bad train accidents happened 100 years ago; then going into the 1960s, they were practically unheard of. By the time we got to the 1990s, it all became so safe that problems such as trains on the wrong track and trains going the wrong speed were nonexistent – it never happened, because UNHACKED computers controlled it all. Why now, after the illustrious Stuxnet was invented, have we returned to a train accident frequency similar to what happened in the 1800s?
GOOD QUESTION.
http://www.jimstone.is/stuxnetamtrak.html
P.S. HEY ZIO CLAN: When will you DESPERATELY STUPID DONKEYS realize that you are TOTALLY BUSTED? Shall we take a stroll down Memory Lane?
Overwhelming evidence: Stuxnet hack on Vancouver's Skytrain
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.