From the beginning, as government officials and news analysts theorized about what might have happened to Malaysian Airlines flight MH370, they appeared to do something rather remarkable—make logical inferences based on available evidence. The standard practice today has been for government flacks and “experts” to pre-empt any meaningful investigation of a disaster by prejudging its cause and feeding house-trained media stenographers, who regurgitate the officially predigested “truth” to the public. But, as is often the case, appearances are deceiving.

Malaysian Airlines flight MH370 departed from Kuala Lumpur International Airport at 12:41 a.m. local time. At 01:21, the Boeing 777-200’s transponder, which gives location and altitude, stopped transmitting. At 01:30 the plane disappeared from Malaysian radar. Its last known contact was a satellite ping at 8:11 a.m. After flying for 6 hours and 41 minutes on autopilot without any satellite or radar contact the assumed final position of the plane was put somewhere in an arc over South Asia or in an arc over the South Indian Ocean 5,000 miles away.

The Malaysian government has since declared that the plane, which had 239 people on board, ended up in the ocean some 2,500 miles southwest of Perth, Australia. That “conclusion,” however, is based not on any direct evidence but on inconclusive sightings of floating debris by Chinese and other nations’ satellites. The idea that a passenger jet could disappear without a trace after more than six hours in the air given all the satellites in orbit and all the passengers’ cell phones that still rang, strains credulity.

So, for all of its apparent openness, mainstream Western news reporting of MH370 has been empty, inconclusive and contrived. In this way, it begs allusion to the absurd non-investigation of the four planes alleged to have been hijacked by Muslims on Sept. 11, 2001. For precisely this reason, the coverage of MH370, though inadvertently, answers many questions about of the events of 13 years ago.

Transponder Silence

Perhaps the most discussed aspect of MH370 is why the cockpit transponder, which gives the plane’s identity and altitude, stopped transmitting. The first plausible theory about MH370 was advanced by Canadian pilot Chris Goodfellow:

“For me, the loss of transponders and communications makes perfect sense in a fire. And there most likely was an electrical fire. In the case of a fire, the first response is to pull the main busses and restore circuits one by one until you have isolated the bad one. If they pulled the busses, the plane would go silent. It probably was a serious event and the flight crew was occupied with controlling the plane and trying to fight the fire…What I think happened is the flight crew was overcome by smoke and the plane continued on the heading, probably on George (autopilot), until it ran out of fuel or the fire destroyed the control surfaces and it crashed. You will find it along that route–looking elsewhere is pointless.”

This theory, which went viral after being posted to Google+, was effectively debunked by author and aviation specialist Jeff Wise. He pointed out in Slate that, among other things, Goodfellow’s theory doesn’t explain how pilots rendered unconscious by smoke could make the sharp course corrections recorded by satellites.

“While it’s true that MH370 did turn toward [a runway on the island of Palau] Langkawi and wound up overflying it, whoever was at the controls continued to maneuver after that point as well, turning sharply right at VAMPI waypoint, then left again at GIVAL. Such vigorous navigating would have been impossible for unconscious men.”

At this point, pilot suicide and mechanical failure can be ruled out. Since the pilot or co-pilot of MH370 could have issued an emergency squawk to alert air-traffic control to a hostile takeover, the absence of such an alert seems to rule out hijacking, at least as the most likely theory. However, did the pilot or co-pilot commandeer the plane? This theory has gained some prominence because of a report from investigative writer Wayne Madsen.

Pilot hijacking and Malaysian cover up?

Madsen cites “multiple sources with Asian airlines” who claim that pilot Zaharie Ahmad Shah hijacked the plane for political reasons:

“It is known that Zaharie was a fervent supporter of [jailed Malaysian opposition leader Anwar] Ibrahim and his People's Justice Party (PKR). On March 7, Anwar was sentenced by the Kuala Lumpur Court of Appeal to five years in prison, overturning his earlier acquittal on charges that he sodomized his former male aide. Sources claim that Zaharie decided to hijack MH370 the next day, March 8, and demand Anwar’s release. Zaharie had worked as a poll worker for Anwar's PKR party in the 2013 general election.…Zaharie was, according to WMR’s sources, incensed over the Kuala Lumpur appellate court’s decision that sent Anwar back to prison and vowed revenge.”

According to Madsen’s report, this political motive explains the Malaysian government’s failure to divulge what it knew about the hijacking right after it happened because it refused to negotiate with Zaharie over Anwar’s release in exchange for the plane, crew and passengers. This fact was kept hidden from China and Malaysia’s financially powerful Chinese community, because the government did not want to look as though it deliberately cost the lives of scores of Chinese nationals, Malays and others.

This theory seems to explain conflicting statements and a bizarre admission from the Malaysian defence ministry that raised suspicions of incompetence or complicity and cover up. First, Deputy Defence Minister Datuk Abdul Rahim Bakri said the Malaysian military initiated no emergency action even though the plane’s sharp course correction was picked up on radar:

The turnback was detected in our radar, only we thought the turnback was done by MAS [air traffic control], an aircraft that was not hostile or a friendly aircraft, so we thought maybe it’s an order from control tower.”

In the Malaysian Parliament on March 27, Bakri said the assumption that the plane was ordered to return was his personal assumption, which he admitted was wrong, but that does not begin to explain the gross negligence of not ordering interceptors to scramble. On what did Bakri base this assumption, and why did the military not confirm the nature of the course change with air traffic control? This is eerily reminiscent of the lack of any fighter jet response to the errant airliners on 9/11 until the attacks were complete.

From the beginning, Malaysian authorities have been contradictory and evasive. On March 11, Reuters carried a statement from air force chief Rodzali Daud in which he said that MH370 was last detected near the northern end of the Strait of Malacca at an altitude of 9,000 metres: “The last time the plane was detected by the air control tower was in the vicinity of Pulau Perak in the Strait of Malacca at 2:40 in the morning before the signal disappeared without any trace.” The next day, Daud denied making the statement and claimed he was misquoted. Also on March 12, Tengku Sariffuddin Tengku Ahmad, a spokesman for the prime minister’s office, contradicted Daud when he told the New York Times there was no evidence that MH370 had re-crossed the Strait of Malacca.

Such clumsy backtracking gives the impression that Daud was initially correct, and that he and the government were coerced into changing their story. If so, was Bakri’s admission of negligence a convenient lie, just like the claim that the Sept. 11, 2001, attack was the result of an intelligence “failure”? In all of this, how much credibility can be placed in the Malaysian government’s confirmation that MH370 went down in the Indian Ocean?

The theory that Zaharie hijacked MH370 might indeed be correct, but it is only based on hearsay and speculation. As satisfying as it may look, the theory is weak.

Suspects or Scapegoats?

First, the idea of pilot blame was being pushed weeks earlier. On March 18, an article in The Telegraph contained the following important paragraph:

“Investigators believe the plane was deliberately sabotaged by the pilot or co-pilot or both and that its communications were deliberately disabled before it flew off course and continued flying for about seven hours. But police have so far found nothing suspicious about Fariq [Abdul Hamid, the 27-year-old co-pilot] or Zaharie Ahmad Shah, the 53-year-old pilot. But officials have reported no evidence to tie the pilot and first officer to the plane’s disappearance.” (my emphasis)

Zaharie had 18,000 hours of flying time over 30 years, and Hamid was on his first unsupervised flight and not yet completely familiar with the Boeing 777-200. To the reporter’s credit, he gave the investigators’ view and just as objectively cited critics who effectively showed their belief that the charge of on-board hijacking to be baseless.

The New York Times, on the other hand, showed no such concern for objectivity. It selectively reported the matter so that the question of pilot blame could be shaped for public consumption:

“Instead of manually operating the plane’s controls, whoever altered Flight 370’s path typed seven or eight keystrokes into a computer on a knee-high pedestal between the captain and the first officer, according to officials.…It is not clear whether the plane’s path was reprogrammed before or after it took off. The fact that the turn away from Beijing was programmed into the computer has reinforced the belief of investigators — first voiced by Malaysian officials — that the plane was deliberately diverted and that foul play was involved. It has also increased their focus on the plane’s captain and first officer.” (my emphasis)

The Times’s spin found its way onto CNN:

“One aviation expert, writing an opinion piece for CNN.com, floated the idea last week that whoever changed the plane’s course was an expert. The person who programmed the change of course would have been somebody knowledgeable about airplane systems,” the Times reported, citing unidentified American officials. The information has increased investigators’ focus on the pilot and first officer, the newspaper reported. CNN wasn’t immediately able to confirm the report.”

How does an expert’s “floating” the idea of professional expertise lead to reasonable suspicion? The mainstream media used the same tactic on Sept. 11, 2001, when the public was also force-fed the idea that incompetent Muslim flight school graduates could have flown passenger jets with professional accuracy. For example, as I wrote in The Host and the Parasite—How Israel’s Fifth Column Consumed America:

Hani Hanjour, the alleged hijacker [of American Airlines Flight 77, which allegedly struck the Pentagon], was a poor student who did not have the skill to maneuver a 757, much less execute a 330-degree turn at more than 500 m.p.h. According to air traffic controller Danielle O’Brien: “The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane.” [The idea that any plane hit the Pentagon has been formally debunked, most ably by former Reagan White House policy analyst Barbara Honegger in her presentation Behind The Smoke Curtain: What Happened at The Pentagon, and What Didn’t, and Why It Matters.]

Notwithstanding the gross discrepancy in skill between MH370 pilot Zaharie Ahmad Shah and the various “hijackers” of Sept. 11, 2001, the official line that both events entailed great flying skill was necessary to fix blame on the pilots. The information in Madsen’s report, coming as it does in early April, is conspicuous by its lateness, and that raises the possibility that it might be contrived. Zaharie’s anger at the government’s jailing of Ibrahim was reported shortly after the plane went missing, but Madsen writes that the George Soros-dominated media in Asia was reluctant to report it for fear of linking Ibrahim, who has many supporters in the international gay rights community, with an act of air piracy.

Yet, even if all the information about Zaharie’s political leanings and passions be true, the cause and effect (anger—hijacking) is imputed, not proven. There is, though, a theory that does a better job of accounting for the fate of MH370, one that renders the theory of pilot hijacking implausible—sabotage. Before we look at this in the present context, let’s return to the past for a moment.

A remarkably similar scenario to that of MH370 occurred in connection with the four aircraft involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, attack. According to page 454 of the Report of The 911 Commission, AA (American Airlines) 11’s transponder was turned off at 8:21 a.m.; AA77’s at 8:56; and UA (United Airlines) 93’s at 9:41. The report states that UA175’s transponder code was changed twice—the first time at 8:47—but contrary to the report, a transcript of radio communications among R42 (New York Air Route Traffic Control Center), UA175, and other aircraft indicate that UA175’s transponder was also turned off:

“8:42:50 USA583: Center, where do you place [UA175] in relation to 583 now?
8:42:55 R42: He’s off about 9 o’clock and about 20 miles—looks like he’s heading southbound but there’s no transponder, no nothing, and no one’s talking to him.”

If the media are now entertaining the idea that MH370 could have fallen victim to sabotage, we should have been talking about it 13 years ago. The fact that it didn’t happen and that the media deliberately sabotaged attempts by skilled pilots and experts to do so, indicates beyond any reasonable doubt that the official 9/11 narrative about on-board hijacking was a contrived lie.

As New York Times reporter Philip Shenon discovered, massive fraud behind the scenes led to the final 9/11 Commission report being cooked to fix the blame on “al-Qa‘ida” and deflect attention away from George W. Bush. Philip Zelikow, executive director of the commission, finished a detailed outline of the final version of the report, just as the commission was starting its investigation. As Shenon writes in The Commission—What we didn’t know about 9/11:

“Many of the staff’s investigators were alarmed. They were finally given copies of the outline in April 2004. They saw that Zelikow was proposing that the findings about the Bush administration’s actions before 9/11 be pushed to the middle of the report, which meant that readers would have to go searching for them past long chapters of al-Qaeda history.”

Is the story of MH370 being cooked to blame Zaharie?

With regard to MH370, the Times defined sabotage so narrowly that it precluded the consideration of anything other than on-board sabotage, and once sabotage is presumed to have taken place in the cockpit, any investigation or analysis has to be forced to fit that presumption. This narrow understanding of sabotage must be considered faulty. Here are some open-ended, unbiased questions that treat sabotage without preconditions:

• Why did MH370’s transponder stop transmitting? (No presumption of on-board human involvement.)
• Did the pilot or co-pilot turn it off? (Possibly.)
• Can a transponder be sabotaged other than by the cockpit crew? (That is the right question.)

Ground theft autopilot

In late November 2006, Boeing was awarded U.S. patent #7142971 for a ground-based system to allow it to “hijack” the controls of an aircraft via a remote communication link. Of course, the patent’s authors do not say “hijack”; instead, they speak of “enhanc[ing] the safety, security and efficiency of the world’s airline fleet”:

“There is a need in the industry for a technique that conclusively prevents unauthorized persons for gaining access to the controls of the vehicle and therefore threatening the safety of the passengers onboard the vehicle, and/or other people in the path of travel of the vehicle, thereby decreasing the amount of destruction individuals onboard the vehicle would be capable of causing. In particular, there is a need for a technique that ensures the continuation of the desired path of travel of a vehicle by removing any type of human decision process….” (my emphasis)

So, even if we assume that Zaharie did hijack MH370, why didn’t somebody seize control of it to land it safely? That now raises the subject of who would have the power to authorize or carry out the “lo-jacking” of an aircraft? Quite a few governmental agencies, according to the patent:

“An aircraft may be in communication with one or more remote locations, which may include but is not limited to an airline office, an airport, and one or more governmental agencies, such as a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) office, a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) office, a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) office, the office of Homeland Security, a military center, or an anti-terrorist agency office. Personnel and/or equipment at the remote location may monitor the aircraft and may be capable of detecting certain events, such as indications from the flight crew or systems onboard the aircraft and/or movements of the aircraft that suggest the security of the aircraft is in jeopardy. Thus, one or more automatic and/or manual engagement elements may be located at the remote location, such that once it is determined that the security of the air vehicle is in jeopardy…”

In short, the U.S. government can spy on and commandeer any aircraft at will but not necessarily for the purposes of passenger safety. The fact that it didn’t act to rescue the plane from a renegade pilot leads to the logical inference that the pilot had nothing to do with flying the plane. Again, the case of MH370 helps shed light on what likely happened on Sept. 11, 2001.

The flight-termination technology depicted in U.S. Patent 7142971 is merely a variation on an existing theme. James Corbett at BoilingFrogsPost.com reported that in August 2001, Raytheon Corporation remotely controlled the take off and landing of a pilotless Boeing 727 six times at Holloman AFB in New Mexico. It is therefore more than reasonable to suspect that the transponder “malfunctions” on Sept. 11, 2001—as with MH370—were the result of an officially approved remote-controlled hijacking, and that the attack itself was preplanned by people other than incompetent Muslim flight-school graduates.

Until there is an unbiased investigation into the possibility of remote-controlled hijacking, the fate of MH370 will remain the subject of endless and pointless speculation, contrived cover stories and time-wasting searches. However, there is one lead worth pursuing.

Duplicate plane?
Thanks to journalist Christopher Bollyn, we know that an exact twin of MH370 sits in a storage hangar in Israel. Whether this has any connection to MH370 is unknown, but the history of this plane is extremely odd:

• April 8, 2013—The twin to MH370, Boeing 777 2H6(ER), construction number 28416 leased by Malaysian Airlines, is withdrawn from use (wfu).
• Oct. 4—The plane is sent to storage at Tarbes–Lourdes–Pyrénées Airport (LDE) in the southwest of France.
• Oct. 21—GA Telesis LLC of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., takes delivery of Boeing 777 2H6(ER) and changes its registration number from 9M-MRI to N105GT.
• Nov. 4—N105GT is sent into storage at Ben Gurion Airport (TLV) in Tel Aviv.

First, note the different registration numbers in the first column. Second, the last column shows that Boeing 777-2H6(ER) was withdrawn from use (wfu) on April 8, 2013, yet ended up in Israel on Nov. 4, 2013, after coming into the possession of GA Telesis.

Bollyn also noted that both Issac Yeffet, a former a global security expert for Israel’s El Al airline and zionist media tyrant Rupert Murdoch read from the same “blame the Muslims” hymn book:

Issac Yeffet:“I believe Iran was involved. They hijacked the aircraft and they landed it in a place that nobody can see or find it.”

Rupert Murdoch via Twitter:

• “Obama should call Chinese President following today's incident and say ‘we both have the problem of Muslim terrorism. Can we work together?’ 3:50 AM - 2 Mar 2014
• “777 crash confirms jihadists turning to make trouble for China. Chance for US to make common cause, befriend China while Russia bullies. 4:15 PM - 9 Mar 2014
• “World seems transfixed by 777 disappearance. Maybe no crash but stolen, effectively hidden, perhaps in Northern Pakistan, like Bin Laden. 2:23 AM - 15 Mar 2014
• “777. Still think this a reminder that US and China should be working more closely on Muslim extremist threat. 2:26 AM - 15 Mar 2014.”

Similarly, on Sept. 11, 2001, “instant experts” miraculously popped up on television within minutes of the attack on the World Trade Center to describe what had happened to the buildings and to impute responsibility to Osama bin Laden, even though nobody could possibly have had any such knowledge. These were complicit disinformants whose job it was to make Muslims out to be villains so that the “retaliatory” massacres in Afghanistan and Iraq could be justified. In this, the role of Israel has been shown to be undeniable.

Now as then, the question is the same: Why would world figures make such preposterous claims of Muslim responsibility unless it was in aid of something much larger? Since we know that Israel and U.S. zionists played a role in the Sept. 11, 2001, attack, it is reasonable to suspect they might be involved in the case of MH370. For example:

• What is a Malaysia Airlines aircraft doing in Israel?
• Does this aircraft have anything to do with another planned Israeli false flag attack?
• Is such an attack related do Yeffet’s and Murdoch’s transparent attempts to blame Muslims?
• Does Israel or the U.S. know where MH370 is?

Regarding the latter question, how is it possible that MH370 was not picked up by satellite from the U.S.’s military and intelligence base on the British-owned atoll Diego Garcia. Even if the plane is not there, as some suspect it is, surely the flight was monitored.

The “disappearance” of MH370 is most probably the result of remote, not on-board, sabotage, but governments, media and gatekeepers are doing their best to sabotage our understanding of it, just as they did 13 years ago.