Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeroen No offense, but I find it remarkable that with no knowledge whatsoever you come to very specific conclusions. |
Very specific conclusions? What are they, may I ask? I re-read my posts to see if I made any conclusions, let alone be very specific about them. I could find none.
I merely stated that I do not rule out the possibility of a remote hijacking, even if I think it is unlikely in the case of MH370. That is because I believe remotely hijacking of a fly-by-wire aircraft is within the realm of possibilities.
I don't know how you saw very specific conclusions in such an unambiguous statement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeroen |
Hmmm, if the NYT carried an article on why irrational/superstitious/gullible people easily buy the "official" line on anything and everything, it would have interested me. Of course they wouldn't, because then they would be out of business very quickly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeroen I'm not aware that there are remote controlled fighters, please do elaborate. I am aware that there are drones. For those of a nerdy disposition here is in interesting anorak fact about those pilots who control those planes remotely. They experience the same levels as stress as pilots sitting in planes going into hostile territories. |
If anything, combat aircraft that can be remotely "hijacked" should be even more likely than commercial airliners. Not all of them, of course. Mostly they should be the ones sold to the militaries of a few countries with a volatile political situation that can turn them into deadly foes in the future. The ones who have this capability are not going to go about shouting it from the rooftops. Instead, should the need arise, they will use it quietly to their advantage, with none the wiser.
Drones are completely different things, as they are designed not to have a human on board. And on the topic of drones and stress, those drone fliers may experience stress while going into hostile territories, but they don't quite experience the same things an ordinary pilot does when he/she kills or gets killed/captured, for that matter. It's designed to be one step closer to a video game.
The guilt associated with wrongly killing a bunch of innocents/children or pain felt before dying that a pilot may experience would not be felt by the drone fliers. It can make them more ruthless, bloodthirsty and inhumane.
The very same applies to remote hijackers. An ordinary hijacker can get killed, injured, overpowered and captured if things go wrong. At the same time, he/she can also feel the collective anxiety, stress, tension and fear on board the plane and it could rub off on the hijacker(s). No such problems for remote hijackers, if they are not on the plane and want to destroy it. It can turn them into bloodthirsty demons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeroen Well it must be true then!! Do share how you validate who is an expert! |
I'm not in the business of validating experts, but when a person uses the anonymity afforded by the internet to state (on a relevant forum) that he was part of a team that worked on a specific military technology (purchased from another country, but not an aircraft) to identify and get rid of the "additional stuff" that was deliberately put in, then I have no reason to disbelieve his claim.
It's no worse than, "Oh! The good, great government says something, so it must be true; the mighty mainstream media repeat it, so it must be true; the entire family and whole circle of friends believe it, so it must be true!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeroen Which have been the top 10 tyrant/dictator planes that have met with these nasty things??? And why isn't that common knowledge? |
Let's begin with the nastiest, shall we? It's the nastiest in my book because the dictator wasn't actually killed. Instead, the assassination attempt went horribly wrong resulting in a commercial airliner being shot down killing all passengers and crew on board.
Of course, I'm talking about
Aerolinee Itavia IH870. It was most likely shot down by French jets who were on a mission to assassinate the Libyan tyrant Gaddafi. Italian and American combat jets were also around, but it's likely that IH870 was shot down by the French planes. Unfortunately for the poor folks on board IH870, it turned out to be their final journey because their plane was mistaken for the tyrant's aircraft.
What do you have to say on that? And the murders/suicides/mysterious deaths of many of those who knew the truth about IH870? I hope it's not the downright disgusting "bomb in the toilet" rubbish regurgitated by the mainstream media, but I wouldn't be surprised in the least if you believed in that.
IH870 is common knowledge, but what really led to the deaths of those folks on board is not common knowledge. It's because there are enough people to believe the rubbish spewed out by the powers that be and their mainstream media stooges.
And yes, I mentioned tyrants and dictators, but it need not be only them. Politicians of different kinds (even benevolent ones) have been killed in suspicious aircraft incidents around the world. As also people who annoyed the powers that be, or those who simply knew too much.
Before the advent of fly-by-wire aircraft, these killings happened by other aircraft related means. With fly-by-wire technology, carrying out an assassination and covering it up should be a piece of cake.
Mark my words, the day autonomous/semi-autonomous cars become commonplace will be the day many ordinary folks (not just tyrants and politicians) who make "certain" people uncomfortable, begin to die in unexplained car crashes. I'm absolutely sure that even then, someone will be stating that autonomous cars are perfectly safe and that they cannot be remotely controlled - for people will only believe what they want to believe.
Anything that takes them out of their comfort zone will be mocked, ridiculed, discredited and dismissed outright. Wonderland is a nice place to be after all, and creating a mental wonderland that is safe and secure is one way of escaping the harsh realities of life for many.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeroen Good for you. Which are the parts of the official version you don't believe?? Trust me, I can debunk every single one of them! |
I don't believe in most of the "official" version, other than the unfortunate fact that so many people were killed on that fateful day.
I'm ready to discuss the events of September 11 with you. Shall we take it to a different thread or perhaps some other means, to avoid the hijack (no pun intended) of this thread?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeroen I agree they probably don't. But then again they always get found out sooner or later. |
Not really. In the last century, it was so ridiculously easy to cover up the truth by broadcasting propaganda through the mainstream media. Too many unquestioning minds and too few credible alternate sources meant the truth was suppressed successfully more often than not. And even when it was discovered, it was often too late. Many of those involved were dead already, and even those who could remember such an incident weren't in a position to care.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeroen The widely circulated notion that the military don't want to disclose information on what their radars told them is, in my opinion complete and utter nonsense. There are only a few countries in the world that have cutting edge radar technology and none of them are in the region involved, with the possible exceptation of China, of course. |
Fair enough. I don't subscribe to that notion as I don't see any reason to believe the militaries of so many countries are hiding radar information.
There is something fishy, and deeply worrying about this entire episode, though. What it is, we will eventually know. Or maybe not. What will be known commonly and widely is the dubious "official" explanation. Most will tend to believe it, some will continue to search for the truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeroen I'm no expert either, but I do know a bit about aviation and aircraft systems. I find it remarkable that you make such statements at all. It is really a lack of understanding what it would take to remotely control a 777. |
I'm glad you know stuff about aircraft and aviation and have flown planes, and I even believe the explanation offered by you (& your friend Jeroen) on why real-time tracking of every commercial airliner is going to be very difficult because of the infrastructure and the expenses involved. What I'm not glad about is that you find it "remarkable" that I make "such" statements.
What is so remarkable about the statements in my previous posts? I have even clearly stated that I think remote hijack seems
quite unlikely in the case of MH370.
I merely stated that remote hijacking of a fly-by-wire aircraft is not outside the realm of possibilities. This was in response to a post by another member who provided a diagram and mentioned it was just a "wild" thought. Trying to draw a line between what can and what cannot be accomplished with technology as it stands today (the realm of possibilities) is nothing remarkable, nor is the line a constant - for the level of technology and its implementation keeps changing everyday.
I firmly stand by my comment that remote hijacking of a fly-by-wire aircraft is within the realm of possibilities.
This statement is not the theory I have put forth to explain the missing M'sian plane. Please do not confuse the two, as I have no theory on the missing 777 (as of now, at least). Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeroen So, no I don't buy the theory that the plane could be remotely hijacked at all. Nor do I believe in a JFK, a 9/11 or a moon hoax conspiracy.
Just as an afterthought. I sort of enjoy watching on YouTube Moon Hoax videos', All sorts of people explaining why we did not land on the moon. |
Ah! Where ever did I mention JFK or moon-landing?
Intentionally and incorrectly associate completely irrelevant stuff, label, discredit and then "debunk" - it's an old trick. Nice try, but I'm sorry, it doesn't work on me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeroen No offense to anybody, but when you buy into these theories you don't find yourself surrounded by the sharpest minds on the planet I think. |
A sharp mind is one that questions and seeks answers, for it is sharper than one that gulps in whatever is routinely fed to it by authority, me thinks. No offense to anyone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeroen When it comes to this particular incident. I don't think we know any facts really. The one thing I'm convinced off is that from a communication and PR perspective this event will go down in history as the worst managed event ever. Just hugely incompetent people being paraded in front of the media. I can't even begin to imagine how hard it must be for the families and friends involved. |
I completely agree with you on this, and the plight of the families of those on board is very saddening indeed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeroen Nothing sinister about that as far as I'm concerned. |
That's what I too thought initially, and was willing to believe the Malaysians, despite their inability to deal with the pressure of being watched by the whole world. Now that it's nearly ten days since MH370 disappeared, I'm beginning to have doubts that someone has something to hide.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guite How are you absolutely certain that the flight control computer can accept input from remote sources other than the hard wired input from cockpit controls and system sensors? |
Let me clearly state that I am not "absolutely certain" that the flight computer can accept remote inputs. If I was so certain, I would have explained exactly how it can be done. All I'm saying is that
I prefer to have an open mind which would not rule out the possibility, however outlandish it may seem.
Even if I were a pilot flying a fly-by-wire aircraft with thorough knowledge of the bird's systems, I still would NOT rule out the possibility. There is nothing more dangerous than getting trapped in a false sense of security afforded by a "know-it-all" attitude about systems (especially of the kind we're talking about) that were designed and built by someone else.
Let me put it this way - if humans can remotely control satellites, spacecraft and even Mars rovers from planet Earth, what prevents them from having the ability to remotely control an aircraft flying some thousands of feet above the surface of the Earth? If one prefers to believe the former is easy to do but the latter is simply impossible, and begins to mock those who think otherwise, I can only allow them the luxury of wallowing in their fantasy for as long as they wish.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guite Does the computer has wireless receiver / port that someone can hack into? |
An electronic system as complex as that, depending on so many inputs, can have more than one vulnerability - but not necessarily as simple as a wireless receiver/port. It would obviously require a very high level of skill to know the existence of, and eventually exploit any such vulnerability. Obviously I don't have the skill required, but I see no reason why someone else shouldn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guite Like you I am no expert but I doubt the aeroplane designers would put in such a capability. Simply because it will make the plane vulnerable. |
I agree. The designers certainly wouldn't put in anything that is as easy to hack into as a Wi-fi network in a neighbouring building, and certainly not on a commercial airliner.
However, let's not forget that certain forces that operate in the shadows, that may or may not be associated with governments, would like to have "a master key", so to speak, over the high technology equipment made by companies they can control or influence.
Why do you think governments such as those of India and the United States are so paranoid about telecommunications and network equipment manufactured by Chinese vendors? It's because they have solid reason to believe the Chinese government wields enough influence over the manufacturers to make them put in stuff that can do more than advertised, and not in a good way.
About the only good thing a commie government does is that they do not pretend to be the epitome of benevolence. They do nasty stuff for sure, but they do not act as saints outwardly. The same cannot be said about some other governments, not to speak of shadowy organisations. As they say, the perfect slave is the one who thinks he is absolutely free.