In the previous installment of this series, I looked at the psychological context for a hypothetical suicide run into the southern ocean. Today, I’d like to consider an equivalent issue with regard to a hijacking scenario. Presuming one occurred, what could be the motive for such an act?
As has often been observed, nobody claimed credit for the disappearance of MH370, and nobody visibly benefited from it. No benefit would seem to imply no motive.
Motive, however, can be a tricky thing to impute to another person’s actions. How can we be confident that we understand enough about a person’s position in the world—or more importantly, how they perceive their position in the world—to judge whether a given act would or would not be rational from their perspective?
A question more likely to yield results, I would argue, is: are there any potential perpetrators who might feel motivated to take such an action, however opaque their motive might be to us?
Here the answer is a resounding “yes.”
As it happens, the UK-based group Bellingcat today released the latest in a series of reports about the shootdown of MH17. For anyone who is not familiar with its work, Bellingcat is a very highly regarded group of amateur analysts who have pioneered the crowd-sourced investigation of open-source data. Bellingcat founder Eliot Higgins first attracted attention after using social media to locate evidence that the Syrian regime had used chemical weapons; later the group used similar techniques to identify the specific Buk missile launcher used to shoot down MH17 and has grappled with many other pressing topics of the day. If you haven’t visited their website, I heartily recommend it, as their coverage is fascinating and offers an excellent model for transparency and balance. Not for nothing the Columbia Journalism Review described Bellingcat’s work as “rigorous, evidence-based examinations of extremely specific questions… extremely valuable in helping us understand complex subjects.”
What has emerged from these reports is a strikingly concrete and layered depiction of events surrounding the destruction of MH17. And it is radically different from the picture that most journalists and analysts hold.
According to Bellingcat’s research, the Buk missile launcher that destroyed MH17 was not some trophy of war that a bunch of untrained militiamen got their hands on and fired off willy-nilly. Rather, it belonged to a specific regular Russian army unit, the 2nd Battalion of the 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade, which was sent from its base near Kursk to the Ukrainian border. From there, this specific launcher was brought across the border in the middle of the night and positioned under the scheduled flight path of MH17. After it blasted the plane out of the sky it was put back on its trailer and brought back to Russia. The whole operation was a one-day mission.
Bellingcat identifies the unit’s officers, and even hones in on the individuals who likely operated the Buk in question. They stop short of speculating at who pushed the “fire” button. The report does make very clear, however, that operating a Buk requires intensive training, so whoever committed the fatal act must have had considerable experience with the system. And as might be expected with a weapon of its range and lethality, a major part of operational training is a tightly controlled firing process. Of the four man crew, only the officer in charge is authorized to make the firing decision. He, in turn, must receive the necessary order from his commanding officer. Contrary to the popular narrative, anyone who would be able to fire off a Buk blindly would know better than to do so.
That’s why, as I write in New York magazine today, Bellingcat has concluded that “responsibility for the downing of MH17 from a weapon provided and possibly operated by the Russian military lies with the Ministry of Defense and the Supreme Commander of the Russian Armed Forces, President Vladimir Putin.”
Some will no doubt find this conclusion incomprehensible: Why in the world would Putin order, or allow, a brutal attack which triggered such harsh repercussions against his country? What possibly could be the motive?
The answer is, we don’t know Putin’s motive. Indeed the alarming upshot of MH17, and how badly the press and intelligentsia have bungled their attempts to understand it, is that we don’t understand Vladimir Putin at all. We can’t presume to guess what his cost/benefit analysis of this decision was. But based on a year’s worth of intensive reporting by Bellingcat, as well as on work released by the official Joint Investigative Team, Putin obviously felt he had reason enough.
By this point I think the relevance of this story to MH370 should be clear. Within four months, two Malaysian Airlines 777s were taken out of the sky under suspicious circumstances. Imagine if you were a farmer who’s been raising chickens for many years without incident. Then one day, for the first time ever, one of the chickens goes missing. Then the next day, you see the neighbor’s dog jumping over your fence with a second chicken in its mouth. Now would you have a theory about what happened to the first chicken?
We know from the analysis of MH370s satcom system carried out by Mike Exner, Victor Iannello, Gerry Soejatman and others, that if a spoof hijacking was perpetrated on MH370 then whoever carried it out possessed an extremely high level of technical sophistication. So high, in fact, that the attack must not only have been state sponsored, but sponsored by a state with cutting-edge technology in aircraft systems and satellite communications. That being the case, if we suppose that MH370 was hijacked by someone other than Russia, then that would mean that two Malaysian Airlines 777s—of which only 15 existed out of a worldwide commercial aircraft fleet of perhaps 18,000—happened to be targeted within the span of four months by two different major powers.
Talk about bad luck!
@Jeff: This Higgins fellow – and his shockingly ardent supporters and detractors – smell far more political (shaping FACTS to fit immutable VIEWS) than scientific (vice versa) to me.
And I am determined not to be misled into war ever, EVER again. So until someone presents me with verifiable hard evidence to the contrary, I am going to cheerfully assume that this guy is just the latest “Curveball”: a convenient arms-length vehicle for the spreading of propaganda, in pursuit of an agenda. Just like RT.
Because to believe everything this particular unemployed online image-seeker (…) has to say about events of potentially catastrophic geopolitical significance strikes me as a sub-optimal strategy for preventing a headlong rush into a major war that will benefit only greasy little war profiteers on both sides, while ruining the lives of millions…
…again.
@Brock, It is verifiable. It is transparent and open. Don’t be blinded by your prejudices. Don’t draw a false equivalency between the imperfect democracy of the West and an overt dissent-suppressing autocrat. Read the report. Look at the material. No one is rooting for war, we are trying to find the truth.
jeff if you suspect me of being paid russian troll because 2 out of 1000 posts on this page look like prorussian then I don’t know what to say..
I don’t even live in Russia (actually couple of thousand miles away) and I can mail you copy of my ID if you want to check it.
I haven’t insulted anyone in my post so can’t see the need for redacting, this is your blog and you have every right to do whatever you want with it but if you want to redact posts just because of different opinion then at least put the disclaimer on the front page so that we don’t lose time writing.
@Jeff: if it is “prejudiced” to trust NEITHER side in a superpower pissing contest, then I wear your epithet with pride.
To demonstrate good will, I will read your internet guy’s stuff. But with deep skepticism – if that is still permitted me.
@Brock, Thank you for indulging me.
@StevanG, You have been a spirited commenter for a long time and I appreciate your contributions. To keep this wagon from rolling off a cliff I have to, from time to time, draw a line between what I perceive as healthy debate and what I perceive as misinformation. No doubt to others my decisions might seem arbitrary or incorrect. I appreciate your understanding that and working with me.
@el_gato
OK, thanks. So I gather that your suggestion of later hacking ISAT’s database(s) to show a false flight path would be easier than spoofing the satellite data in realtime.
You said “Actions on the ground and in the plane must not necessarily have been coordinated. A reaction like: “now that it happened, how do we fix it?” is also conceivable.” Presumably we are talking about an unlikely scenario anyway but I guess that an external hacker would need to do some research, planning and testing. So it seems even more unlikely that anyone could just change those data with virtually no notice but more likely a sophisticated hijacking group planned to take the plane and change MH370’s entries in ISAT’s database after the flight. Not that this gets us anywhere with motive or finding the plane but just another possibility to remain “on the table”.
One possibility not considered is that these atrocities may have been committed by senior “defence” officers as part of a coup attempt against Putin by turning him into an international pariah.
I have lived in Malaysia for over twenty years. Although now retired, I worked here for almost ten years, including a few years consulting with Malaysia Airlines. Many Malaysians are notorious for their “tidak apa” attitude (roughly translated as “couldn’t care less”) That was the situation with the Malaysian Air Force ATC controllers, who ignored that fact that MH370 had turned back and was “invading” Malaysian airspace. They had an SOP that required then to report to a senior officer to scramble RMAF aircraft to investigate. They failed to do this, so causing the whole MH370 “mystery”. So far there has been no announcement of any action against or by Malaysian defence officials, including any “falling on their sword.
@Bill Peter
My take on it (highly speculative) is that very senior government officials in KL knew perfectly well that the aircraft had been diverted, and were negotiating with the perps (not in the aircraft but in KL). The SAR response in the days following the disappearance support this conjecture. SAR was lead by highly placed officials, not by the folks you would normally expect to handle these details.
I’ve thought for some time about the implications of Russia’s involvement, *IF* Russia were involved in the disappearance of MH370, … specifically how it would affect their relations with China, because most of the passengers were Chinese.
And a tangential issue suddenly appears to me to be of more significance.
… China has steadily been building artificial islands in disputed areas of the S.China Sea over nearly a decade.
However, starting in mid-2014, it ramped up it’s island building activity dramatically, and to the point where now it has permanent settlements and airfields with long runways capable of accomodating medium sized passenger jets. This is threatening the freedom of one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world. At first, I attributed this down to the fact that the Chinese waited till Obama was in his final years in the White House to ramp up their activities. And that may very well be true.
… But I also believe that the Chinese observed White House reaction to the Russian invasion of Crimea, and realised that Obama was doing his best to avoid a ‘hot’ war with Russia, and wouldn’t risk opening up another flashpoint in the Pacific.
Yet, the Russians couldn’t have coordinated their invasion of Crimea with the Chinese, and the Chinese couldn’t have anticipated the timing of the invasion either. So the Chinese must have been opportunistic in taking advantage of the West’s distraction with Russia.
Now, if the Russians made MH370 disappear for the TACTICAL purpose of distracting media attention in the West, were there any STRATEGIC purposes as well?
– if this was a HIGH TECH highjacking of a passenger aircraft, it would be the FIRST USE of this new technology in war. Like the Atom Bombs in WW-II which served both tactical but also strategic purposes for the FIRST USE by USA, Russia is leaping ahead and signalling to the most powerful nations on earth it’s FIRST USE of cyber/tech warfare.
– Russia is warning China to beware of any border incursions during Russia’s pre-occupation with it’s Western front.
– Russia is warning China that despite it’s new role as rising superpower, it cannot come at the expense of Russia.
This may (or may not) explain why China ramped up it’s island building in S.China Sea after MH370 to counteract any perception that it was weak in the face of threats from the 2 other superpowers.
The history of the main NATO partners clearly explains the fascist activity of this criminal organization.
During the occupation of the American continent European bandits killed about 25 mln. American Indians, the others have been put in concentration camps Reservation where they have been kept until now, which is the Nazi style crime.
During World War II in retaliation for the bombing of London, British and US Air Forces dropped bombs on Dresden and other German cities killing more than 100,000 civilians, including children. Many children were burned alive.
In 1945 to avoid combat activities, army losses and force Japan to surrender, America dropped two nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. At the same time America had a plan to drop 12 more nuclear bombs on other major cities in Japan, if Japan did not surrender. About 200,000 civilians, including children, were killed and burned alive.
In 1949, Churchill demanded that the US government drop a nuclear bomb on Moscow before the Soviet Union acquires the nuclear weapon.
During the Vietnam War, America used napalm and chemicals against the civilian population. Many thousands, including children, were burned alive
In 1999, NATO bombed Serbia day and night without a break for a month using bombs with depleted uranium. The goal was the creation of the never-existed islamofascist state Kosovo on the land belonged to Serbs for centuries.
Thousands citizens, including children, have been killed by NATO’s bandits in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria.
@CliffG, Very interesting idea.
Chicken – this is ridiculous! September 11 planes, too Putin hijacked?
Bullshit your writings. Who gave you the right to accuse Russia? Piece of shit you’re not a writer and blogger !!!!
Jeff. I was intrigued by your idea of MH370 being hijacked and flown north to Kazakhstan when you proposed it last year. I am enthralled by the disappearance of MH370 ever since it went missing so I would really like your opinion and theory on the finding of the flaperon that was verified to be from MH370. If you still think the plane was hijacked and flown north, how do you explain the flaperon being found in the ocean. Just curious what your take is on that. Thanks
@matty. I have just such a systematic BTO error and it matches highly plausible flight path. “revised” BTO derived positions in ECEF match BTO observed with R Sq of 0.999
Misha – The WW2 allies dropped two atom bombs on Japan for two main reasons.
1. We won the race to build them.
2. We only had two bombs. Threats of large scale annihilation via nuclear weapons were bluff. There were however conventional bombing raids that killed as many people as those two bombs put together(Tokyo)so I’m sure it didn’t change the result, just hastened it. And yes, it was done to minimize battlefield casualties, but this was 1945 and civilian casualties would have far outweighed those killed in uniform.
More recently there has been some mess indeed, but the atom bomb crowd have got their way this time around with IS – a group that has staked it’s entire existence on the assumption that the west will not use it’s force advantage to crush them in a week. We will see where it goes from here. My prediction: crushing them in a week may look the better option once it has all played out.
Now back to MH370
http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/mh370-eight-questions-on-missing-malaysia-airlines-flight-mh370-that-need-answers/news-story/c72cfb2b0ff57c96483ae6028bc954f5
Paul Smithson – I’m sure a lot of people would be interested to know more.
Matty – the funny thing is, they are not! The BTO/BFO guys don’t want anybody meddling with the “official interpretation”. Essentially they are saying BTO “can’t lie” because speed of light doesn’t change. I wondered whether BTO values could change depending on how the algorithm that generates the “number” does so – particularly if there is some sort of disruption of data inputs, timing synch or whatever. Or, alternatively, if “somebody” altered the BTO values in a systematic way to make them fit the 18.22 radar blip. I favour the former explanation but I don’t know enough about satcoms or TDMA algorithms to be able to posit a sensible “mechanism of disruption”.
Did you read my report at http://www.findMH370.com? I am presently working on path model variations to find which path (initial heading and timing) provides the optimal match. It is already clear that the solution is going to be a track-hold(M) not heading hold(M) path. As mentioned, I already have a linear fit with r-sq > 0.999. I’m down to decimal degree and fraction of a minute variations on path models. More after the weekend….
It looks as if the best fit is going to be with a constant mach 0.821 [same as pre-disappearance] track-hold (M) path that corresponds with return to KL via IKUKO (ie reciprocal of filed flight plan). I haven’t quite nailed the timing yet – but best fit will be with turnaround initiated within 120 seconds of Mode S signal loss.
@Matty well said to Misha; he oversimplifies history, but there is many of such oppinions on both sides of spectrum
@all please extrapolate worldwide on this excerpt from 2016 Australia Defence white paper, page 42:
2.13 China’s military modernisation means it has greater capacity to share
the responsibility of supporting regional and global security. The
Government welcomes China’s growing participation in United Nations
2016 DEFENCE WHITE PAPER
Australia’s security environment 43
SECTION ONE STRATEGY
peacekeeping, humanitarian assistance, disaster relief and anti-piracy
operations. Australia will expand its defence relationship with China over
coming years, as outlined in Chapter Five.
http://www.defence.gov.au/whitepaper/Docs/2016-Defence-White-Paper.pdf
simply put, there is underlying common strategy despite clashes between superpowers in media, which is all targeted primarily to local public relations; and any liars and manipulators will be erased, or better, they already are erased since they started the last wars anywhere
BTW, yet another public source, yeah…
US CYBERCOM AND THE NSA: A Strategic Look with ADM Michael S. Rogers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnTGO6OFgCo
@Matty
Thanks for the link, nice to finally see it portrayed this way and even better, someone having interest in writing it.
Seeing Sarah Bajc’s name reminded me….Probably a given when trying to establish a profile of someone, that family would be the most informative. NOK interviews would be imperative for establishing profiles of PAX and crew, this being an integral part of the investigation.
Jeff referenced a link a few weeks back;
http://www.icao.int/APAC/Meetings/2015%20AIG%20Workshop/02%20MAL%20-%20MH370%20INVESTIGATION%20TEAMS%20PRESENTATION.PDF
Under CONSTRAINTS AND CHALLENGES it lists difficulty setting up interviews with NOK. The only thing I’ve read from the NOK regarding this is their frustration from NOT being contacted by authorities.
So it would seem the “difficulty” doesn’t stem from the unwillingness of the NOK, on the contrary. So what was the “difficulty” and did it prohibit (other than standard background checks) an official investigation of all aboard the plane.
One more example of shoddy work; Under “EMAIL QUERRY RECEIVED”; are we really suppose to believe that the official website regarding the investigation of this gargantuan aviation disaster….received 58 emails during this time??? 8 of which I sent (zero response)
5-6 they state as “Unrelated”, so actually 45.
Scans of the ocean floor may have missed possibilities…how many other areas of this investigation have missed.
@Andrew, That’s a great question. I touched on this subject in a blog post last month (http://jeffwise.net/2016/01/05/free-the-flaperon/) and before that last October (http://jeffwise.net/2015/10/09/the-flaperon-flotation-riddle/). I plan to return to it again shortly.
@all, At the suggestion of some longtime commenters I’ve implemented a small change: I’ve closed the comments on earlier posts and directed people to make their comments on the current post. If what you want to say is off-topic, that’s okay; better that than posting in the most appropriate place and not having anyone see it. If for some reason this doesn’t work I’ll go back to the old way. Thanks!
@Paul Smithson
Just finished a first pass of your linked report. Very impressive piece of work. Will comment further as I “digest” it. You write extremely well, BTW.
Thanks @DennisW. Having found that there is a “systematic BTO adjustment” that permits linear fit with this scenario, I am now doing a sensitivity analysis to look at how the BTO correlation is affected by small changes in heading (fractions of a degree) and timing (in 60 second steps). So far it looks as if the “optimal path” – from BTO correlation point of view falls a little SE of my estimate of the debris origin. More after the weekend when I have had a chance to finish the sensitivity analysis…
@Paul
“emergency of some sort” around us is pure fact, but I refuse to guess any specific actions on the plane as speculations or reading from tea leaves (as some german journalist told bellingcat does). Why so many ppl tries to present theirs speculative reports what exactly happened? Somebody walking on the Earth must know far more than we all here.
@Paul Smithson, In your scenario, how does the SDU log back on?
I don’t have an explanation for that.
In your scenario, why does someone intent on disappearing fly over at least 4 radar fields of view?
@Paul Smithson
It’s awkward with you touting your theory here while continually taking cheap shots at the host
@Paul Smithson, Actually that’s a fantastic question and one which will be the topic of one of the upcoming posts in this series.
Not cheap shots @Susie – simply asking why we chose to “walk on the wild side” just because BTO derived range doesn’t seem to have worked out (and others have more than adequately listed the logical options without invoking Putin or Aliens).
@Paul
my quick reaction glided over surface of your blog only; just read whole document and you want to say that plane returned directly to KL and everything we know about Penang and FMT is wrong?? I doubt this. Sure that sharp U-turn is weird as hell, according to this on your page 31:
2. The right-angle left turn that is depicted in JIT’s graphic (Figure 3 in this report) is impossible for a commercial airliner flying at true airspeed of ~480 knots and may possibly belong to another aircraft crossing MH370’s path. As early as 12 March, only four days after disappearance and before the “radar narrative” took shape, Peter Goelz, former director of the US National Transportation Safety Board, told CNN: “… There was always great scepticism about this 90 degree turn”
Although “very uncorfontable” for passengers, is at least theoretically possible for 777 to do something like “lag displacement roll” maneuver, where plane initially turns right while descending into roll and recovering from nose dive to other directon?? B707 once did it in history. Pilot told that it was there “to sell the aircraft…”
That’s nice to know @Falken. According to DSTG it requires near-instantaneous deceleration from ~470 to ~250kts, hang a left at max bank angle, and then step on the booster to take her right back up to ~490 ish. That model is what their “filter” says… I have seen other (I think SK999?) suggestions on how this particular maneuver might have been pulled off and it requires a high-acceleration dive, turn and climb. I have the latter down in the “unlikely” category and the former has more to do with computerised path filters than flying aeroplanes.
Australia’s new Transport Minister, Darren Chester, was recently briefed on MH370. He has decided that the current search area will not be expanded, independent of the possibility of a “rogue pilot” gliding the plane a distance away from the 7th arc. The expectation is the search will be completed in July.
http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/tragic-mh370-search-on-track-to-end-in-july/news-story/3d63de39dfce8a1d16a05d4ee07475f9
hope for Syria, US-Russia and others working together
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k84QxVJd0tI
@Paul Smithson
Read your paper again, went for a walk, had lunch, and sucked down a beer.
I am not willing to abandon the ISAT data just yet. I am quite ambivalent about the radar data. I have not used it at all despite Oleksandr’s insistence that I had to in order to get West of Penang.
Apart from non-conformance with the ISAT data, your theory holds together for me, and you have certainly presented it well.
Let’s see what the next FI report brings to us. If the flaperon forensics show flutter damage and in air separation your theory is strenghtened. If the damage is consistent with a shallow angle water impact you are sunk.
Also I have little confidence the flaperon could make it to Reunion Island at all much less in the timeframe it was found starting from your terminus.
@AM2
You wrote: “I guess that an external hacker would need to do some research, planning and testing. So it seems even more unlikely that anyone could just change those data with virtually no notice but more likely a sophisticated hijacking group planned to take the plane and change MH370’s entries in ISAT’s database after the flight.”
You have a point there. Selecting a suitable template flight were probably the hardest part. One also needs to know where possible traps are when updating the tables, which requires Inmarsat-specific knowledge about the exact definition of the field/column contents. Though in a very minimal scenario it could be as fast & easy as this:
1. copy the template
2. update all timestamps by adding a constant time offset
3. replace the AES ID
4. remove the flight ID from the log-on message payload
That’s a few lines of SQL.
@el_gato/AM2
Tell us why you think someone would hijack the aircraft. What is the underlying motive for that action?
@el gato – and dont forget knowing the precise orbital parameters for that particular day, inclusive of the station-keeping manoeuvre made a couple of days previous (that would not yet be reflected in the public domain TLE – which in any case is lower resolution). I cannot understand how anybody regards “spoof” as credible.
a) you have to know about BTO/BFO existence
b) you need to have a rough idea how to spoof it (and it took Inmarsat and NTSB a week to come up with intepretation)
c) you have to know the satellite orbital characteristics for that day.
Sorry to say, I ain’t buying it.
@Paul Smithson
Good points. I can entertain a “spoof” that is replacing AES transmissions in real time. Although that too would be tricky. Much less tricky with Victor’s suggestion of AES parameter alteration.
The simplest of all spoofs would be a dummy aircraft replacing MH370 with the proper AES ID, and even programming it to follow one of the popular AP routes and crashing near the current search area. The dummy could even have been flown over Africa using a mirror image flight path. Much simpler than the hack described above.
Of course, all spoofs must have anticipated that the ISAT data would be used in the manner it has been used. Not a slam dunk by any means.
I ain’t buying it either.
@DennisW
Many ideas for motive have been suggested over these last 2 years. Your idea is that Zaharie hijacked the plane for political purposes in order to negotiate with Malaysia? Maybe some state hijacked it for political advantage/threat too… Or maybe to create a major distraction in the world (if that was the motive, then they have been successful). I really don’t know and consider any type of hijacking to be pretty unlikely. More likely IMO is a cover-up for something that went very wrong…just my gut feeling.
@AM2
Unfortunately, I think the distraction was quite small. Most of the people I know looked puzzled when I told them I was working on it a couple of months after the disappearance. Now it is ancient history except for the relatively small group of people like us still engaged with it. Human attention span is very limited.
As I mentioned in a previous post, the fluoridation of water is of far more concern to a much bigger population size than the loss of MH370.
@DennisW
I have no idea. The number of possible motives is almost infinite, and we’re obviously lacking information to constrain them any further. The problem is that, once I assume the plane went to the SIO, the set of motives that would remain on the table all seem pretty absurd to me. For that reason (and because of a couple of other well known issues, e.g. with the radar data) I was trying to figure out a simpler alternative to the spoof theory. I think I want to avoid basing my conclusions on the ISAT data because I got the feeling that they are an obstacle rather than the key to finding the truth (not the plane).
@el_gato
The ISAT data is what it is. If you postulate that it is valid, which I believe it is, it cannot tell you where the aircraft went. It can tell you where the aircraft did not go
worried about security in air? probably even worse under water, with tridents on board
“We’ve not needed them in the wars we’ve been fighting. Maybe we needed them in the Cold War. They have served their time, they should be given respect for what they’ve done for our country during the Cold War, but not now. Times have changed. It’s a new world and they need to wake up, create real change, create a sustainable system.”
https://www.rt.com/uk/333777-trident-whistleblower-william-mcneilly/
… and I love this 🙂
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX_d_vMKswE
As for possible motives for hijacking, they could be any number of things in reality, but we just dont’ know. It could’ve been something in the cargo, someone on the plane, almost anything.
A french reporter obtained video footage of security and boarding area the night mh370 disappeared. he wrote an article for a newspaper that never appeared on line, but he was quoted as saying there were two people in the boarding area (as in getting on the plane) who clearly never went through security. Now how could that happen, did they disguise themselves as MAS employees somehow, regardless, i for one am interested in hearing more about this particular video (if we ever do). But it could answer some questions as to who was piloting the plane and why they did what they did.
A political hijacking gone wrong, could explain why the plane ended up in the southern indian ocean as they say it did, or it isn’t anywhere near there, yet that what we are supposed to believe.
I do not believe they (searchers) have missed it, when they found the remains of that shipwreck (the first one) there wasn’t much left of that boat, but yet they could see it. If the remains of a 777 are down there, they will find them. If not, then the data has led everyone astray.
@Paul Smithson
You’re right, I realize that an attempt of faking the data ex post such that they point to a certain location is not feasible. The only option that would remain is that the initial intention was merely to “keep the plane in the air” for a few hours, and that the SIO terminus were just coincidence, i.e. an artifact in the BTO/BFO interpretation of the template data in the MH370 context and time frame.
@bugsy
you said:
“As for possible motives for hijacking, they could be any number of things in reality, but we just dont’ know. It could’ve been something in the cargo, someone on the plane, almost anything.”
No Bugsy, it is not that simple. I would never pose a simple hypothetical. You might be interested to know that I could not find a single example in the history of commercial aviation of an airplane being hijacked for someone or something on the airplane.