First of all, with a crock of shit story that changes from day to day, they usually start out as close to the truth as they can and then modify the story as necessary to account for discrepancies. For this reason you need to pay close attention to the first versions of the story.

First of all, consider the early version of the cockpit voice recorder. At that time they claimed that the last eight minutes contained only normal breathing sounds, followed by light tapping on the cockpit door. Then toward the end heavy pounding on the door followed by screams from the passengers as they approached the ground. That was it.

I believe this part was basically true except for the fact that normal breathing is unlikely to picked up by the CVR. The people listening to this the first time were looking for words, which they did not find, and probably did not understand the significance of the other sounds on the tape. Most likely what that thought was normal breathing was just the normal air noise of the cockpit.

Now then, to this they added the fictitious part about the pilot conversations prior to the last eight minutes. They said the co-pilot was polite and respectful until near the end when his responses got "curt." Then the Captain supposedly said to him, you've got it and left for the restroom.

I believe they felt at the time that that was all they needed to do to establish the idea that the co-pilot was alone in the cockpit, the Captain was in back locked out and that the crazy co-pilot crashed the plane. Of course, the idea that the co-pilot was alone in the cockpit was essential. If they were both there, it is almost impossible that they crashed the plane together without a word being said.

Minimal lie, but it didn't work. Since then they have come up with embellishment after embellishment to this version of the tape to try to make it more convincing. Somehow they didn't hear the Captain yelling, "Open the door, dammit" the first time along with many other things.

I think you have to consider a very simple explanation that makes sense from the first version of the recording. Note, not a word or any sound, even as they approached the ground. Even if he was determined to crash the plane, some sort of survival instinct should have kicked in producing some sort of sound just as the ground approached. I suggest that this is totally consistent with the pilot being unconscious.

If this is the case, it has enormous implications. It has been suggested that there is some way to insert gas into the cockpit to incapacitate or kill the crew. In an airplane as large as an A320 there would be plenty of places to hide such as system, possibly disguised as something else. I don't have any evidence, other than inference from this VCR tape, that such a system exists, but if it does it is almost certain - no make that completely certain - that they would not want any flight crew members to know about it.

Think about it. "Hey guys, we've installed this system on the airplane you are flying that can be activated remotely by any government agency with access to the codes to render you unconscious and then use the auto pilot to fly the airplane into the ground and destroy it and everyone on board anytime they think it serves their interests." That would go ever big, right?

So, implication number one. If this system exists, you cannot trust the flight manuals to tell you the truth about how the airplane operates in all detail. All kinds of things are possible. When the system is activated remotely, it might be possible for it to lock the cockpit door with absolutely no way of access by the fight crew, flight attendants or anyone else. It might be that under this condition (remote activation) that the door codes do not work or produce a sound and there is no time limit that the door would remain locked. It might be a system that works one way when the pilots activate it and another when it is remotely activated.

If this seems a little whacky, think about cars for a minute. As you are aware, cars in the last ten years have a system where someone with access to the codes (not ordinary people) can remotely cause the accelerator to floor while simultaneously deactivating the brakes and the airbags. There are several examples where this was possibly used. Do you think any car manual tells its owner about this system? Do you think they installed this system so that if you fell asleep at the wheel, they could take over, guide your car to your home, park it in the garage and carry your groceries upstairs? Nonsense. That system was installed for one reason and one reason only - so that any car could be used to assassinate any one they felt served their interests.

What makes you think the system on the airplanes is any different? Since 1986 when Airbus started with this system and 2006 when Boeing admitted to getting a patent on the system, can you find any example where it was ever used to rescue an airliner from hijacking? Since the TSA there are no hijackings and ironically on 9-11 there were no hijackers either. Since there have been no hijackings, there is no instance where a pilot has ever tried to activate the system (why would he) and thus what would happen if they tried it is unknown. This system has only one purpose and that is what it was used for with Germanwings.

You asked why the controllers didn't activate the system to "save" Germanwings. Seriously??? The plane crashed eight minutes after it began its descent. When the controllers noticed the descent they tried to contact the plane without success. Then, according to procedure, they asked other flights in the area to attempt contact in case they could hear transmissions from the air, but not from the ground. This probably consumed half of the eight minutes or more.

Do you really think there is actually some agency that sits around 24/7 monitoring every airline flight around the whole planet and is ready at a second's notice to enter the correct code for any plane of any airline no matter where it is, instantly figure out what the problem is and save them? On top of that, they have been sitting around doing absolutely nothing for the last 29 years. but hey, they are ready to go. Oh, and another problem. How do they override the automatic takeover initiated by the French?

I'll bet the real procedure is similar for both cars and planes. Consider the need for control. If you were trying to sabotage a car, would you want to just press some button to activate a satellite system and hope everything worked out the way you wanted, that the person you were interested in was actually in the car and the crash, if it happened, actually killed him?

Instead, wouldn't it make more sense to follow the car with a device to activate the system in your car. Then when you had determined that the person you wanted was driving the car and when the car approached a perilous stretch where high speeds and no braking would likely be fatal, THEN activate the system. Finally, wouldn't you then follow the car to see what happened, (pretending to be a concerned passerby) but in reality making sure that the person you were interested in was actually dead and could tell no tales?

Why would it be different for airplanes and isn't that exactly what they did? Several French jets were behind Germanwings BEFORE it began its descent (how did they know if they didn't do it?) and followed it all the way down to make sure what happened.

I think the idea that the uninterruptible autopilot system has a benign purpose, to save planes from hijacking, is an outright lie made to placate the pilots who found out about it. It's purpose is really the same as the one in cars. Doesn't that really make more sense when you think about it? If you buy into this lie that it is an anti-hijacking system, then it leads you into inconsistencies when trying to reconcile what actually happened, even if you have corrected identified the big lie of the crazy co-pilot.

Another thing I think must be considered a lie is the idea that the Captain was locked out of the cockpit, or even out of the cockpit at all. Granted this element is essential to the big lie of the crazy co-pilot, but other than that it only leads to difficulties.

For example, I believe you suggested that after the airplane was electronically commandeered, the Captain left his seat to go back in the cabin and attempt to access controls under the floor. You apparently got this idea after noticing in a manual that some parts for the system were located there. However, if you had thought this through carefully, I'm sure you would have realized how that idea does not work.

In the scenario you describe, the aircraft is commandeered while both the Captain and co-pilot are in the cockpit. In that case, both of them would know for certain that the other one did not do it. The first almost certain reaction (take it from me, I've been there) would be conversation, like, "WTF is going on?" If they correctly identified the problem and the Captain did leave, they would certainly be on the same team, recognizing their predicament. The co-pilot would not have locked the Captain out and both of them would be cooperating to find a solution to their predicament. See, it doesn't fit.

The whole idea of the Captain leaving the cockpit is problematic. In my decades of flying the situation of one leaving the cockpit on a flight as short as two hours is unusual. It's not that it never happens, it's just rare. Getting out and going back is a hassle. If you want anything, all you have to do is press a button and coffee, food or whatever you want will be delivered to you. When you arrive at the plane and toss your flight bag into the cockpit, if you think you might need to, the restroom is right there and there are no passengers on board yet to occupy it, as is often the case in flight.

On this particular flight there is another problem. Apparently the co-pilot was unconscious during the last eight minutes. For this to work, they would have to know when the Captain left the cockpit, then release the gas so the co-pilot would be unconscious before the Captain returned. How did they time that? Also, the idea of using the seat belt sign to initiate the release of the gas is also unrealistic. In the event of turbulent weather, they might never have turned off the seatbelt sign. Remember, the need for control. Besides there would be no way of knowing when they did this to initiate the remote takeover.

When you eliminate the crazy co-pilot theory and the need for the Captain to be out of the cockpit, the most logical explanation is that both the Captain and co-pilot were gassed and unconscious together. The knocking on the door is best explained by the flight attendants. On a two hour flight they have a two hour service and a descent an hour early would cause them concern. To find out what was going on, they probably knocked on the door, softly at first and then louder. They also probably tried calling on the intercom and got no answer. This wasn't a hijacking situation so the idea of using the door code probably did not occur to them and it is unlikely that any of them had ever used it in their career and might not have remembered it, assuming the door lock works the same way on a remote electronic hijack.

This is the simple explanation. Both pilots were rendered unconscious, the plane was put in a gentle 3000/min autopilot descent which was steady and constant all the way to the ground. Mission accomplished. I doubt they needed to shoot out the tail as the terrain warning system was unlikely to be able to compensate for this. After observing the results, the fighter pilots returned to base.

My question. How do they get guys to volunteer for this? Most people of any nation join the military to protect their country. Downing passenger planes is not in their MO. My idea is that only followers of the Talmud, which teaches that killing goyim is a good thing, would be good candidates for this job. Also, the fact that the Jewish owned mass media of all types is heaving pushing the crazy co-pilot theory points me, at least, to who was responsible for this.

Anyway, that should be enough points for you to ponder for now. I hope this makes sense to you.

Mike

http://www.regeringen.se/debattartiklar/2015/01/alla-ska-orka-med-hela-sitt-arbetsliv/

Alla ska orka med hela sitt arbetsliv