The Malaysian government reportedly is investigating the possibility that missing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 avoided radar detection and landed in Pakistan near the Afghanistan border inside Taliban-controlled territory, according to the UK Independent . . . investigators confiscated a homemade flight simulator from the pilot's home to see if it reveals any useful information . . . the Malaysian foreign minister told reporters that Malaysia asked several Asian countries for assistance in its investigation, including Pakistan . . . Pakistan dismissed the idea that a Boeing 777 could land undetected inside the country but promised to work with the Malaysian government in its search for the missing plane . . . Pakistan's Civil Aviation Authority stood by the government's denial that Flight 370 was in Pakistan, saying Tuesday that "we have checked the radar recording for the period but found no clue about the ill-fated flight" . . . retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney told Fox News host Sean Hannity on Friday and again on Tuesday that his connections have led him to believe that Flight 370 landed in Pakistan with the help of the flight's two pilots . . . McInerney said, "When the U.S. Navy quits their search, their ship search, they must know something in the Indian Ocean. When the Israeli Defense Forces, when they increase their defense alert, they must know something" . . . a LIGNET analyst received information from a source at Boeing that the company believes the plane did land in Pakistan . . . Boeing spokesman Sean McCormack denied that Wednesday, telling LIGNET that "the Boeing Company does not have information that substantiates your claim" . . . Israel is taking the possibility of a terrorist attack seriously by mobilizing air defenses and giving extra scrutiny to approaching civilian aircraft, according to the Times of Israel . . . a Boeing 777 requires a lengthy, 7,500-foot runway, and Pakistan has many of them, meaning Flight 370 could conceivably be hidden in a hangar inside the country . . . U.S. surveillance of the area may be able to shed light on the theory through satellite imagery or signal intelligence.
When both sides of the political spectrum agree, it either adds credibility to the theory, or it points to a need to put the blame on a third party -- in this case, the ever-compelling Muslim Terrorist groups. Both Russia's and the West's neo-con interests are served by assigning blame for the downed flight on Muslim Terrorists. That doesn't mean it is not true, but there are still many questions to be answered for this theory to be the correct one:
- Was it an inside job by the pilot and/or the co-pilot? It's perhaps possible that only one of them was needed to land the plane, and he could have disabled or killed the other one. But if it's not them, then,
- How was access gained through the cockpit doors, which are deadbolted from the inside, says Still, in support of the rogue pilot theory. Still also says that the plane might have been loaded with extra fuel at the discretion of the pilot in the second video above.
The same graph Still uses to discredit the ping location data is used in an article in The Atlantic magazine, and they also conclude, like Still, that -- the graph defies these expectations. Taken at face value, the graph shows the plane moving at a significant speed before it even took off, then moving toward the satellite every time it was pinged. This interpretation is completely at odds with the official conclusion, and flatly contradicted by other evidence."
And that...
The problem is, although this interpretation matches two basic expectations for the frequency graph, it still doesn't match Inmarsat's example flight paths. The new frequency values, calculated by Exner, show the flight's speed relative to the satellite as only about 144 miles per hour by the last ping, but Inmarsat's example flight paths show a relative speed of about 272 miles per hour.
It's possible these outside experts have still erred or missed some crucial detail in their attempts to understand the Inmarsat analysis. But that just means that Inmarsat's analysis, as it has been presented, remains deeply confusing, or perhaps deeply confused. And there are other reasons to believe that Inmarsat's analysis is not just unclear but mistaken.
The Atlantic author complains that none of the relevant Malaysian officials, or those from Australia or the U.K. have responded to his queries, which seems to be fairly typical of most articles on this subject, despite the voluminous official statements by Malaysian Airlines that have left relatives of the missing passengers unsatisfied and anguished. Clearly, these relatives will not be satisfied with the weary and resigned statements now that "We may never know what happened."
If indeed, we "never know what happened" the conspirometer will flip over to Kennedy Assassination and 9/11 red levels.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
3
3
2
