Wednesday, March 26, 2014


Amid all of the obfuscation and epistemological warfare going on surrounding the disappearance of Malaysia Air flight 370, one version of the hijack scenario that is not being discussed by the lamestream media presstitutes is that of a capture of the aircraft by remote control, and its subsequent piloting by remote control to whatever destination or end it may have met. Mind you, my mind is not made up about any scenario save one: whether the aircraft was the victim of some sort of deliberate action, pilot “suicide”, or more exotic and anomalous “disappearance”, what does seem clear is that in the spate of stories that began about two days after the flight’s disappearance, we are dealing with an “event of opportunity” that has begun to be spun by means of the deliberate obfuscation of the smallest details: transponders were turned off, but then, another article saying transponders couldn’t be turned off; Chinese satellite pictures that were first offered, then withdraw; radar tracks appearing days after the fact, a disappearance southeast of Vietnam…no, woops, scratch that, we now “know’ that the plane changed course and may have landed in Pakistan as part of a first phase of a terrorist operation(shades of 9/11) involving possible use of the aircraft as a delivery mechanism or weapon…woops, scratch that, Australia is saying that they may have found debris in the Indian Ocean west of Perth…woops, scratch that, General MacInerny on Faux News said he thinks that the flight may have flown close to another flight flying over India so as to trick Indian radar…woops, scratch that, India said (a couple days earlier as if anticipating that spin), that no aircraft would enter their airspace without them knowing about it, but we’ll help in the search… woops, scratch that, no we won’t…
On and on it has gone, and hence, regardless of what one’s “favored scenario” is, one thing emerges: the degree of obfuscation and media attention points to the involvement of covert forces in the emerging storyline, and its use at the minimum as an “event of opportunity” to conduct epistemological warfare.
But for those of you in the “abduction by remote control” scenario, a scenario that began to emerge as an hypothesis to explain the demonstrable flying skill of some of the alleged 9/11 maneuvers, there is now this development:
Boeing wins Patent on Uninterruptible Autopilot System
Note the date of that article: December 4, 2006(and my thanks to a regular reader here, Mr. V.T., for sharing it). Observe what the central core of the article states:
“Although airplane cockpit door locks are now standard, worries remain about terrorists taking control of a plane a la 9/11, perhaps by extorting the pilots into opening the door against their better judgement. Elsewhere in today’s issue we report on a new Raytheon contract to develop software that uses type of craft, location, and fuel capacity to determine the safest route for a hijacked or otherwise compromised aircraft. This is a great idea, one that must have Chicago, Illinois-based Boeing excited — not out of envy but because it improves the value of its recently awarded patent for a system that, once activated, takes control of the airplane away from the pilots and flies it to a predtermined landing position. Put the Raytheon and the Boeing systems together — now that’s a good idea.
“Boeing’s is, of course, not the first autopilot technology in existence, but this one has been designed with counterterrorism first and foremost in mind. Not only is it ‘uninterruptible’ — so that even a tortured pilot cannot turn it off — but it can be activated remotely via radio or satellite by government agencies.”(Emphasis added)
Now as most of us here probably already believe, the public release or discussion of technologies usually lags several years if not decades behind their covert black projects development. After all, drone technology was around long before 9/11. In World War II, the Allies mounted an operation to try to destroy German submarine pens and other installations by guiding bombers loaded with explosives by remote control, an operation that coast the oldest Kennedy son, Joseph Kennedy Jr, his life. The Germans developed remote control missiles that were radio or television guided, and used them with operational success in destroying the Italian battleship Roma on its way to surrender to the Allies. So the idea of such remote control and its use is not new, nor impractical.

What’s new in this patent, and its relevancy both to the 9/11 storyline and the developing storyline to the Flight 370 affair is simply the statement that a system has been developed to override cockpit decisions remotely. This is significant because, as far as I have been able to determine, modern aircraft such as a Boeing 777 have autopilot features which would prevent a pilot from maneuvers that would place too much G-loading and stress on an aircraft, its crew, or passengers. Such features would take over and trim out the aircraft should such a thing occur. But if that is possible, technologically, then it becomes possible to entertain the opposite: that a pilot could be overridden and a plane flown in a fashion hazardous to the crew and passengers, without the possibility of them overriding such remote control. And if that is possible, then it is also possible to conceive that such systems could be hacked by yet a third player.
The relevance here is obvious and hardly needs to be stated. While the article cited above goes on to state why all this is wonderful and good, the unstated proposition, which is equally possible, is left unspoken and unstated, because it would raise nasty questions about the official 9/11 narrative, just as it raises nasty questions about flight 370.

No comments:

Post a Comment