02-02-2015, 02:07 PM
I concede that this guy's idea is possible, but why would the US bother to shoot MH 370 down after the "unknown hackers" had steered it a) into an area where it couldn't be used as a weapon, and b) into an area from which there was no choice but to run out of fuel and crash in the ocean anyhow?
(Don't get me wrong, I think that remote hacking is one of the things that actually happened. Just don't think the shooting down part did.)
(Don't get me wrong, I think that remote hacking is one of the things that actually happened. Just don't think the shooting down part did.)
"All that is necessary for tyranny to succeed is for good men to do nothing." (unknown)
James Tracy: "There is sometimes an undue amount of paranoia among some conspiracy researchers that can contribute to flawed observations and analysis."
Gary Cornwell (Dept. Chief Counsel HSCA): "A fact merely marks the point at which we have agreed to let investigation cease."
Alan Ford: "Just because you believe it, that doesn't make it so."
James Tracy: "There is sometimes an undue amount of paranoia among some conspiracy researchers that can contribute to flawed observations and analysis."
Gary Cornwell (Dept. Chief Counsel HSCA): "A fact merely marks the point at which we have agreed to let investigation cease."
Alan Ford: "Just because you believe it, that doesn't make it so."