MH 370: Missing Malaysian Airliner

[Peter Presland]

In post #86 I was not endorsing Debka or the article as a reliable source of accurate information - more DISinformation. I referred to it because, based close connections to Likud and the Israeli intelligence establishment, Debka have a long track record of providing plausible cover for covert Israeli ops - analogous to the Daily Mail/UK intel relationship you might say. They always seems to have a startling and early techie angle on such matters.

IMO, that article is more likely an indication of Israeli involvement in the disappearance than an accurate account of what happened. That's what I meant by 'my antennae quivering'

[Peter Lemkin]

In post #86 I was not endorsing Debka or the article as a reliable source of accurate information - more DISinformation. I referred to it because, based close connections to Likud and the Israeli intelligence establishment, Debka have a long track record of providing plausible cover for covert Israeli ops - analogous to the Daily Mail/UK intel relationship you might say. They always seems to have a startling and early techie angle on such matters.

IMO, that article is more likely an indication of Israeli involvement in the disappearance than an accurate account of what happened. That's what I meant by 'my antennae quivering'

Peter, I'm just thinking out loud here....
Israel certainly has the technical means and know-how to pull off something like this, but WHY? They have their own planes to use for any black operation[s]. If Israel is a player here, then it is wheels within wheels, I think - and the actual player[s] want it to look as if the action was done by others [false-flag]. Still, publicly, the strangest thing is that there seems [SEEMS!] to be no one really taking 'credit' and no one 'assigning blame' on someone or entity....almost the hallmarks of false-flag operations. Perhaps the perpetrators feel that a delayed claim or blame is to their advantage. I still think - without firm evidence - that security/intelligence officials in several countries know much more than they are saying publicly. This might well have had some influence on the very late and poor reporting record of the Malaysian Govt. on this matter. I just sense the magician's hand, and that we are being pointed in all the wrong directions....being fed more disinformation than information.

[David Guyatt]

I'll ask this question:

Do we know for an absolute certainty that there were passengers on this aircraft?

I realise this might seem a daft question in the light of the huge amount of words published on the subject, but I continue to find this whole affair bewildering.

If an aircraft disappeared without passengers, just flight staff, it would rate a mention in the newspapers, but not the continued coverage we have seen.

That the aircraft was full of passengers and has disappeared without trace - apparently - is what makes it a very notable story.

I think we all sense that there is something very strange going on here, and that we, the public, are not being told the whole truth by any means.

[Peter Presland]

I'll ask this question:

Do we know for an absolute certainty that there were passengers on this aircraft?

I realise this might seem a daft question in the light of the huge amount of words published on the subject, but I continue to find this whole affair bewildering.

If an aircraft disappeared without passengers, just flight staff, it would rate a mention in the newspapers, but not the continued coverage we have seen.

That the aircraft was full of passengers and has disappeared without trace - apparently - is what makes it a very notable story.

I think we all sense that there is something very strange going on here, and that we, the public, are not being told the whole truth by any means.

Here's the passenger manifest courtesy of South China Morning Post.
Here's an article links to interesting information for those inclined to go further down this particular rabbit hole.

I'm inclined to believe that the manifest is accurate and I agree that there is 'something very strange going on'. I'm also inclined to think that it will turn out to involve the knowledge-base of those Chinese Freechild Semiconductor techies. The AbelDanger site has some - on the face of it - truly bizarre things to say about that

What we can be fairly certain of is that the plane was equipped as standard with an uninterruptible auto-pilot that is susceptible to a remote hijacking by those with the necessary knowledge and equipment. If that is what has happened and the pilots were NOT involved, then other electronic interference - per AWACS capabilities - would also be required to prevent radio alerts and to spoof a transponder signal so as to avoid being ID'd as a transponderless intruder by india, Bangladesh, Burma and a few other countries to the NW. It seems that fuel range was also sufficient to get it to both Diego Garcia and the Seychelles.

Beyond all that I have no idea - other than that Debka (and the Western MSM when theorising) are far more likely to be laying a false trail than a good one - knowingly or not.

[Albert Doyle]

What we can be fairly certain of is that the plane was equipped as standard with an uninterruptible auto-pilot that is susceptible to a remote hijacking by those with the necessary knowledge and equipment. If that is what has happened and the pilots were NOT involved, then other electronic interference - per AWACS capabilities - would also be required to prevent radio alerts and to spoof a transponder signal so as to avoid being ID'd as a transponderless intruder by india, Bangladesh, Burma and a few other countries to the NW. It seems that fuel range was also sufficient to get it to both Diego Garcia and the Seychelles.

As far as I know Boeing has a pilot control option so the pilot can always be in control. The scenario of the pilots sitting there with control of the plane taken away probably isn't likely since it would involve simply turning a switch to regain control. I don't know if the fly by wire computer flight control system can be overridden externally.

I saw one CNN guest suggest the 777 headed for poorly radar covered airspace over Bangladesh and up and over the Himalayas. Hmm. I don't know the specifics but I think this would involve computer guidance. Whether that flight computer communicates with air traffic control I don't know, but I do know it would be difficult to find Bangladesh, and even more difficult to the thread the Himalayas, without computer guidance at night.

As per the AWACS camouflage, Air Traffic Control knows its regular commercial flights. I'm pretty sure a bogus flight would stand out on air traffic radar as remarkable. Especially late at night when there are few flights. Plus I'm pretty sure the ATC controller would notice an AWACS aircraft tagging along.

Diego Garcia is a military base for both the US and Britain. The plane would have to be landed with the Malaysian Airlines livery in bright appearance. While they did get those who participated in TWA Flight 800's shootdown to shut-up this one seems too out there. What would they do with the 239 passengers?

[Peter Lemkin]

Planes can be so configured [overtly or covertly] that ALL control can be external and NO ONE in the plane can regain control. The cover story for this system is to defeat a hijacking and land a plane safely; but it can also be used to hijack a plane and take control away from a crew - or fly a plane as a drone [no crew needed]. The German airlines removed this system from all of their US made planes for fear of just such happening.

[David Guyatt]

[quote=Peter Presland]

As per the AWACS camouflage, Air Traffic Control knows its regular commercial flights. I'm pretty sure a bogus flight would stand out on air traffic radar as remarkable. Especially late at night when there are few flights. Plus I'm pretty sure the ATC controller would notice an AWACS aircraft tagging along.

I'm far less certain that an AWACS plane would be seen by normal commercial radars. Besides this they can effect control from a long way off. Also, it's possible a smaller version of AWACS could fly close to and above or below - but slightly behind the airliner and therefore appear to be the same aircraft radar signature. I've watched a USAF Hercules fly low (maybe a couple hundred feet most) out over the coastline of Suffolk in England at night - fully lit as per regs - but with a smaller fighter aircraft flying below and just at the tail of the Herc. This one was unlit and the only conclusion I could reach was that it was tasked to use the much larger Hercules radar signature to hide it from British ground radars. In other words, it was an unattributable black flight cloaked from the authorities of its host nation.

[Peter Presland]

As far as I know Boeing has a pilot control option so the pilot can always be in control. The scenario of the pilots sitting there with control of the plane taken away probably isn't likely since it would involve simply turning a switch to regain control. I don't know if the fly by wire computer flight control system can be overridden externally.

Of course it is not officially acknowledge that a remote hijack and subsequent control/landing is possible regardless of the actions of the pilots but, post 9-11, most skeptics of official narratives understand that 'National security', or even mega-bucks can command precisely that ability.

This article references the sort of scenario I had in mind.

I'm not pushing any theory here you understand; just covering as many bases as appear on my radar - no pun intended

[Peter Lemkin]

As far as I know Boeing has a pilot control option so the pilot can always be in control. The scenario of the pilots sitting there with control of the plane taken away probably isn't likely since it would involve simply turning a switch to regain control. I don't know if the fly by wire computer flight control system can be overridden externally.

Of course it is not officially acknowledge that a remote hijack and subsequent control/landing is possible regardless of the actions of the pilots but, post 9-11, most skeptics of official narratives understand that 'National security', or even mega-bucks can command precisely that ability.

This article references the sort of scenario I had in mind.

I'm not pushing any theory here you understand; just covering as many bases as appear on my radar - no pun intended

For the FAA's own admission of vulnerabilities on this plane [in bureaucratic language], see my post #71
Others say any modern Boeing is vulnerable - or can surreptitiously be made so.
It seems that just as the NSA and GCHQ have built in back-doors in hardware and software, some plane manufacturers have built-in back-doors to wrest control from either authorized or unauthorized pilots. Have a nice flight!::

[R.K. Locke]

Possibly the most unique element of this very unique operation is that no overarching narrative or cover story has been floated yet. We've had numerous scenarios suggested in the MSM, but no particular line has been pushed and no patsies have been presented.

We know from experience that cover stories for operations of this kind are prepared in advance and uncritically regurgitated by the compliant lapdog media, so what is happening here? Is the ongoing "mystery" part of the script? I think it has to be.