Today we are told that the fate of Flight 370 is known, not yet identified debris has been spotted in what is called “the Southern Indian Ocean,” perhaps more appropriately described as “north of Antarctica.”
We also know that the 777/200 is a “fly by wire” aircraft with controls in place that allow the CIA to remotely pilot the plan “in case of emergency.” We were able to verify the design and implementation of this system through Boeing, Raytheon and commercial pilots.
The descriptions today in the New York Times and other publications are purposefully inaccurate and contradictory. Their explanations of how commercial aircraft communicate and are tracked are fanciful at best, at worst “criminal.”
CIA CONTROLS COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT
When Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 was reported as having crashed in the South China Sea, a massive cover up began yet no one will speak of it, nothing is written of it and its broad consequences are a subject of no investigation.
While people around the world were told the plane was “lost” or “crashed,” it was being monitored by NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command) and its regional defense partners through secret systems installed in the plane.
In 2006, Boeing announced the following, from a John Croft article in Flight Global:
Boeing last week received a US patent for a system that, once activated, removes all controls from pilots to automatically return a commercial airliner to a predetermined landing location.
The “uninterruptible” autopilot would be activated – either by pilots, by onboard sensors or even remotely via radio or satellite links by government agencies like the Central Intelligence Agency, if terrorists attempt to gain control of a flight deck.
Boeing says: “We are constantly studying ways we can enhance the safety, security and efficiency of the world’s airline fleet.”
Similarly, Raytheon Corporation was awarded a contract by the Federal Aviation Administration 8 years ago to implement an “Advanced Route Evaluation System” (ARES) to work in concert with the system operated by the Central Intelligence Agency.
In addition, the technical staff at Rolls Royce, a fact also reported in the Wall Street Journal, continually monitored the plane’s flight.
Hundreds of people knew exactly where the plane was, how every system was working, what had been “turned off” not only when but where and exactly where the plane is now. Every word told the press, has been a lie.
Every word told by the mainstream media has been a lie.
THE “FLYING DUTCHMAN” AIRLINER
Now everyone knows that the plane continued flying for hours. This is where the cover up becomes problematic; you see everything about the plane was known, position, conditions of the engines, oxygen levels in the cockpit and passenger compartment, this and much more.
Even if the plane couldn’t be remotely piloted, its systems under “uninterruptable” control, a term coined by Boeing itself, the 777/200’s supposed “Flying Dutchman” journey to the South Pole is more than implausible.
The CIA along with Joint military commands set up during the Global War on Terror, tracked Flight 370, monitoring it continually, monitoring the murder of its passengers, monitoring its landing, monitoring its refueling and know exactly where it is.
If the plane really went down “off Antarctica,” they then monitored and “allowed” that.
ROLLS ROYCE SILENCE
In Britain, technicians for Rolls Royce monitored the plane as well, reporting its position to the British government every minute it was in the air. Those technicians have been silent, the British government has never been asked, and no one has been asked.
As the largest “Where’s Waldo” hunt in history goes on, now pulling in data from weather satellites and fleets of anti-submarine warfare planes unleashed upon the Indian Ocean, the entire thing is an “act,” a would-be comical farce.
Flight 370 is a Boeing 777/200, one of the most automated planes in the world. We will be outlining some of the specifics that make this theft or hijacking or alien abduction or whatever the mainstream media chooses to call it not just improbable but government sponsored terrorism.
9/11 ALL OVER AGAIN
This isn’t the first time something like this has happened. When four airliners “disappeared” on 9/11 much of what we are seeing today occurred then, but with far less technology being denied and suppressed.
According to Dr’s James Fetzer and Dean Hartwell, planes involved in 9/11 were still flying elsewhere after being listed as having crashed or never took off in the first place. These reports, though backed by verifiable data, were considered wild and suppositional by most but, in light of the Flight 370 debacle, deserve to be reconsidered.
Yes, planes can fly for hours after having crashed and, “yes,” authorities will lie about, not just the location of planes but show a frightening indifference when it comes to the now obviously pre-planned “disappearance” of passengers.
There are a number of devices on commercial aircraft embedded in such a way as to prevent disabling while in flight. You will never hear about where they are, what frequencies they broadcast on or how they work.
They are there. There are highly classified and they were on Flight 370, being continually monitored by military and security forces tasked specifically with preventing commercial aircraft from being used as weapons.
We all remember the testimony at the 9/11 Commission hearings. Condoleezza Rice, General Myers, Rumsfeld and Cheney, none of them had ever heard of the possibility of planes used as weapons no matter how many memos they had sent or received contradicting their testimony.
Similarly, days, even weeks later, one of the great “disappearing tricks” of all time, and the American military not only monitored every mile travelled but knew exactly when and where the passengers were killed. Part of the admitted “redirection” of Flight 370 included 45 minutes at 45,000 feet.
There is a procedure taking exactly that long at that altitude for depressurizing the cabin, using up existing oxygen supplies and killing passengers.
We received this from a Boeing 777 pilot with a major airline. From an article in New Eastern Outlook (Russia):
“Just a quick update with what I know about the Malaysia 777 disappearance. The Boeing 777 is the airplane that I fly. It is a great, safe airplane to fly. It has, for the most part, triple redundancy in most of its systems, so if one complete system breaks (not just parts of a system), there are usually 2 more to carry the load. It’s also designed to be easy to employ so 3rd world pilots can successfully fly it. Sometimes, even that doesn’t work…
There’s many ways to fly the 777 and there are safety layers and redundancies built into the airplane now to Malaysia. There are so many communication systems on the airplane: 3 VHF radios, 2 SatCom systems, 2 HF radio systems, plus Transponders and active, ‘real time’ monitoring through CPDLC (Controller to Pilot Data Link Clearance) and ADS B(Air Data Service) through the SatCom systems and ACARS (Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System) thru the VHF, HF and SatCom systems. The air traffic controllers can tell where we are, speed, altitude, etc. as well as what our computers and flight guidance system has set into our control panels. Big Brother for sure! However, most of these things can be turned off.
But, there are a few systems that can’t be turned off and one is the engine monitoring systems. The Malaysia airplane, like our 777-200’s, uses Rolls Royce Trent Engines (as a piece of trivia….Rolls Royce names their motors after rivers….because they always keep on running!) Rolls Royce leases these motors to us and they monitor them all the time they are running. In fact, a few years back, one of our 777’s developed a slow oil leak due and partial equipment failure. It wasn’t bad enough to set off the airplane’s alerting system, but RR was looking at it on their computers. They are in England, they contact our dispatch in (REDACTED), Dispatch sends a message to the crew via SatCom in the North Pacific, telling them that RR wants them to closely monitor oil pressure and temp on the left engine.
The crew did all of that and landed uneventfully, but after landing and during the taxi in, the left engine shut itself down using it’s redundant, computerized operating system that has a logic tree that will not allow it to be shut down if the airplane is in the air…only on the ground. Pretty good tech. Anyway, the point was that RR monitors those engines 100% of the time they are operating. And don’t EVER get in an Airbus!!”
What do we know for sure? We know the plane was tracked continually. We know classified systems were on board that could reroute and land the plane no matter what any hijacker could have done.
We know the passengers could be killed easily using control systems that should not be available to crew or hijackers but, for some reason, are a major “hole” in the security of an aircraft that has multiple redundancy systems for other “mishaps.”
We know the media has never addressed simple technical issues that a simple “fact check” on Google could have rectified. Did they lie on purpose?
Did someone tell them to lie?
Sources claim the plane landed on Diego Garcia, was refueled, dead passengers “disembarked” and was moved elsewhere?
Is this a better explanation than flying to the South Pole hidden from the world through multiple simultaneous failures of safety, communications, counter-hijacking and autopilot systems?
What we are certain of is that in light of today’s announcement, a series of seemingly plausible rationales for what we really know to have been utterly impossible are being concocted.
This effort is what is now called “reporting.
This article was written by Gordon Duff for Press TV on March 25, 2014. Gordon Duff is a Marine Vietnam veteran, a combat infantryman, and Senior Editor at Veterans Today. His career has included extensive experience in international banking along with such diverse areas as consulting on counter insurgency, defense technologies or acting as diplomatic representative for UN humanitarian and economic development efforts.
The Iran Project is not responsible for the content of quoted articles.