Flight MH 370

[planosteve]

On May 18, former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad accused the CIA and Boeing of deliberately hiding vital information about missing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370.

In his personal blog, the ex-PM claimed that the CIA seized control of the Boeing 777 jet after takeoff, pointing out that these days an aircraft could be remotely controlled by certain government agencies, such as the CIA, which then staged a fruitless rescue operation.

“It is a waste of time and money to look for debris or oil slicks or to listen for pings from the black box,” Mohamad said, as quoted by Australia’s Sydney Morning Herald.

“The plane is somewhere, maybe without MAS (Malaysia Airlines) markings,” wrote Mohamad on his blog.
“Someone is hiding something,” he added. “It is not fair that MAS and Malaysia should take the blame.”

Mahathir Mohamad is Malaysia’s longest serving prime minister, remaining in office for 22 years until 2003.
http://rt.com/news/161624-missing-malay ... eing-data/

[GFB]

I knew it would be the U.S. that was at fault, and not the usual Muslim reasons.

[Sangersteve]

My theory remains the same, the plane is or was in a paint shop in Tijuana, it will move from there to the upholstery place, then for a lift kit, hydraulics,and some bling 24's.

[scarlett~nc]

I knew it would be the U.S. that was at fault, and not the usual Muslim reasons.

yep, surprise it's not George Bush's doings

[planosteve]

Actually, it may have been Bush's fault. I have read that most airliners built after 9/11 have electronics that allows them to be taken over and flown remotely like a drone. This was considered an anti-hijacking measure. But, it was never admitted and no planes with the system have been hijacked yet. So, it's hard to know if it's true or not.

[GFB]

Actually, it may have been Bush's fault. I have read that most airliners built after 9/11 have electronics that allows them to be taken over and flown remotely like a drone. This was considered an anti-hijacking measure. But, it was never admitted and no planes with the system have been hijacked yet. So, it's hard to know if it's true or not.

Why don't we start with..where did you read that?

[Red Oak]

Malay Muzzies must be crazier than Arab Muzzies

[planosteve]

Actually, it may have been Bush's fault. I have read that most airliners built after 9/11 have electronics that allows them to be taken over and flown remotely like a drone. This was considered an anti-hijacking measure. But, it was never admitted and no planes with the system have been hijacked yet. So, it's hard to know if it's true or not.

Why don't we start with..where did you read that?

Unfortunately, I don't have a photographic memory. If I did I wouldn't be sitting here. But, it was a creditable story and if true, then the US is the only country that could possibly have taken the airplane. Doesn't mean they wanted the plane, they may have just wanted to destroy something or someone that was aboard.

[GFB]

Actually, it may have been Bush's fault. I have read that most airliners built after 9/11 have electronics that allows them to be taken over and flown remotely like a drone. This was considered an anti-hijacking measure. But, it was never admitted and no planes with the system have been hijacked yet. So, it's hard to know if it's true or not.

Why don't we start with..where did you read that?

Unfortunately, I don't have a photographic memory. If I did I wouldn't be sitting here. But, it was a creditable story and if true, then the US is the only country that could possibly have taken the airplane. Doesn't mean they wanted the plane, they may have just wanted to destroy something or someone that was aboard.

Wouldn't the "where did you read that" part kind of matter?

[scarlett~nc]

Actually, it may have been Bush's fault. I have read that most airliners built after 9/11 have electronics that allows them to be taken over and flown remotely like a drone. This was considered an anti-hijacking measure. But, it was never admitted and no planes with the system have been hijacked yet. So, it's hard to know if it's true or not.

somehow this doesn't surprise me ..of course..it would be George Bush's fault in your mind at least

[planosteve]

I think a president is responsible for what the Federal Govt. does during his term whether or not he as personal knowledge of it.

Wouldn't the "where did you read that" part kind of matter?[/quote] I didn't say it was a fact. It's just a theory. But, it makes a lot of sense. It is certainly possible to fly aircraft by remote control. Even full sized airliners, it's been demonstrated. And it also makes it possible to get rid of someone or something and blame it on an airline accident.

[GFB]

I think a president is responsible for what the Federal Govt. does during his term whether or not he as personal knowledge of it.

Wouldn't the "where did you read that" part kind of matter?

I didn't say it was a fact. It's just a theory. But, it makes a lot of sense. It is certainly possible to fly aircraft by remote control. Even full sized airliners, it's been demonstrated. And it also makes it possible to get rid of someone or something and blame it on an airline accident.[/quote]

Wonder if it has a little joystick..that might be fun.

[John in Plano]

I think a president is responsible for what the Federal Govt. does during his term whether or not he as personal knowledge of it.

Wouldn't the "where did you read that" part kind of matter?

I didn't say it was a fact. It's just a theory. But, it makes a lot of sense. It is certainly possible to fly aircraft by remote control. Even full sized airliners, it's been demonstrated. And it also makes it possible to get rid of someone or something and blame it on an airline accident.

Wonder if it has a little joystick..that might be fun.[/quote]

There is an app to remote control SmartPlanes ;

Forget big, bulky remote controls. The best remote control is already in your pocket: your smartphone. You can fly the SmartPlane with just one hand

http://www.smartplane.net/

[Allen]

Actually, it may have been Bush's fault. I have read that most airliners built after 9/11 have electronics that allows them to be taken over and flown remotely like a drone. This was considered an anti-hijacking measure. But, it was never admitted and no planes with the system have been hijacked yet. So, it's hard to know if it's true or not.